PDA

View Full Version : Marine Hate



Pages : [1] 2

Brother Ranz
14-12-2006, 16:18
I have been away from 40K for a while and I do not remember all of this Marine hate from the old days. I also see people wanting to play "unique" lists??? There are thousands and thousands of players and only a few factions. Is it possible to play a unique list? And hating Marines??? Space Marines are what got this game going and got most of us into the game. Why the hate?

My Chapter as designed on my kids' Dawn of War game:

http://forums.komitatus.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1457.0;id=143;imag e

jfrazell
14-12-2006, 16:26
From when are you stepping back in? That may be a bit of an issue (plus people like to complain on the internet and I am no exception). Reasons:

1) Everyone and his mother has a marine army (Imp or Chaos). It can lead to a stale gaming experience fairly quickly. This is my primary issue and its nothing against marines or marine players (I have marines myself). Even a Texan would get tired of a steady diet of steak day in and day out.

2) Marines have some definite strengths. Most commonly objected to items are the capabilities of drop pods, librarians, and most importantly assault cannons.

3) It can be argued that the bog standard tac marine is undercosted vs. its abilities in comparison to other lists. I'd agree in certain circumstances (guard trooper) but not in others (chaos tac or generic firewarrior).

Brother Ranz
14-12-2006, 16:30
I've played one 40K game since 1998.

;)

Acolyte of Bli'l'ab
14-12-2006, 16:48
I dont get the marine-hate either, id like a bit more balance between races but I dont understand the hatred the marines get, theres so much you can do with them. If you dont like the generic marine armies, theres plenty of interesting alternatives so yeah..marine-hate is weird lol, but then I think all of the 40k armies have their place IMO. Now back to painting my immortals...

Budro
14-12-2006, 17:54
I don't hate SM armies (though it can be argued that you find more "win-at-all-costs players using SM, but that it probably more correlated with the sheer numbers of people playing SM then anything else). What bugs the crap out of me is that GW consistently puts out material for them in the form of rules AND fluff then any other army.

Once again though this is somewhat dictated by the number of players using SM - or more correctly market power. I think that if they were to focus more on xenos you would see more players. WHFB has a much better race representation and each army receives eqvialent attention IMO.

But then again, I'm an ork player so maybe I'm just bitter and whiney... :D

Arhalien
14-12-2006, 17:58
My main problem with Marines is that they're everywhere. See the poll in which 75% of voters said they had at least 1000 pts of marines. I also get annoyed at the fact that marines get lots of separtate chapter rules, while almost all other races are stuck with a single book. I would personally much rather see some wierd new aliens than a new SM chapter as the enxt codex.
Another porblem with this multi-sm-codex thing is, in my mind that it could cause some list stagnation - GW would be afraid to change the problems in one list as it would mean changing all the others.

Just my 1.whatever it is pence (I live in England, I use Sterling :D)

Acolyte of Bli'l'ab
14-12-2006, 18:04
I would personally much rather see some wierd new aliens than a new SM chapter as the enxt codex.


Same! Give me fuzzy spiders, carnivorous plants or cthulhu creatures! :evilgrin:

The Emperor
14-12-2006, 18:14
I would personally much rather see some wierd new aliens than a new SM chapter as the enxt codex.

That's the thing, though. To do such an army would cost VASTLY more then a Space Marine Codex. With a Space Marine Codex, you just have to make a couple differences to an already existing and exhaustively playtested list, put out a Chapter specific sprue, a handful of units and pewter figures, and that's it. With a new alien army, however, they'll have to create the race wholly from scratch, write background material, do intensive playtesting, and create an entire miniature range. The costs that go into a Marine Codex like, say, Dark Angels, is chump change in comparison to making a brand new army.

The way I see it, putting out a Marine Codex for GW is like going getting free cash, in terms of costs versus returns. That, more then anything else, is why I think they tend to release Space Marine Codex's inbetween other releases. Take Orks, for instance. That Codex will likely entail a huge amount of work, the kind that went into Codex: Eldar. They need to completely redo the Codex, playtesting, invent new units, and replace a large chunk of the miniatures range, as well as making new models (like the rumored Ork modular vehicle kit). That's a large and, likely, expensive undertaking.

Black Templars, however, probably took a lot less effort and money to produce. So they make them on the cheap, collect their cash, and splurge on cool stuff for the next army. I'd like more alien races, too, but don't expect to see variant Space Marine Codex's disappear.

Count de Monet
14-12-2006, 18:17
I don't really get it either. But then, I originally got into the universe in RT days, and things like the Heresy and Badab War are some of my favorite 40K bits.

For those who were drawn in by another race like Eldar or Orks, they might feel slighted by the emphasis on the Imperium/Marines. "Why another Space Wolf book? Why not a book about a Waagh?" they might ask.

They also might feel in-game frustration, and a feeling that since they're different, they want others to be different too, but instead end up facing a similar army most of the time. You get the same effect with "flavor of the month" armies when EVERYONE is playing Necrons, or Tau, or Eldar, or whatevercodexwasjustreleased for awhile -- it's just that marines are still there when the other stuff clears away.

Pavulon
14-12-2006, 18:19
@ The Emperor

Thy argument is cogent!

Da Reddaneks
14-12-2006, 18:27
1) Everyone and his mother has a marine army...

2) Marines have some definite strengths. Most commonly objected to items are the capabilities of drop pods, librarians, and most importantly assault cannons.

3) It can be argued that the bog standard tac marine is undercosted.
That pretty much sums it up. no one really hates marines. we just get sick of seeing them everywhere. They are also have clearly been given "favorite son" status by GW at the expense of support for other armies.

Hadhfang
14-12-2006, 19:02
They are also have clearly been given "favorite son" status by GW at the expense of support for other armies.


I don't know, Tau are a popular choice as well nowadays, in a few years time we may see "Tau hate"

I think it's because they are used by everyone, and a lot of them are ultramarines, which ticks people off, Other chapters are not hated as much in my experience

ashc
14-12-2006, 19:03
There has been a very recent increase in marine-hate on these boards; im not entirely sure where its all popped up from all of a sudden, its like somebody left the tap on a few years back and now the dam has burst.

Ash

Cirenivel
14-12-2006, 19:23
i doesn't really get all the SM hate, in my gaming group there's me and 3 more, whereas 2 of them plays MEQ, but do you see me complaining? No, you don't. reason? beacause i like the game, and SM and the other MEQ's are just a part of it. learn to live with it!

Cirenivel

jfrazell
14-12-2006, 19:31
That's the thing, though. To do such an army would cost VASTLY more then a Space Marine Codex. With a Space Marine Codex, you just have to make a couple differences to an already existing and exhaustively playtested list, put out a Chapter specific sprue, a handful of units and pewter figures, and that's it. With a new alien army, however, they'll have to create the race wholly from scratch, write background material, do intensive playtesting, and create an entire miniature range. The costs that go into a Marine Codex like, say, Dark Angels, is chump change in comparison to making a brand new army.

The way I see it, putting out a Marine Codex for GW is like going getting free cash, in terms of costs versus returns. That, more then anything else, is why I think they tend to release Space Marine Codex's inbetween other releases. Take Orks, for instance. That Codex will likely entail a huge amount of work, the kind that went into Codex: Eldar. They need to completely redo the Codex, playtesting, invent new units, and replace a large chunk of the miniatures range, as well as making new models (like the rumored Ork modular vehicle kit). That's a large and, likely, expensive undertaking.

Black Templars, however, probably took a lot less effort and money to produce. So they make them on the cheap, collect their cash, and splurge on cool stuff for the next army. I'd like more alien races, too, but don't expect to see variant Space Marine Codex's disappear.

Of course you could do the exact same thing for existing army lists. With the same minimal cost you could make multiple chaos books, IG Codexes, Eldar Codexes, Tau Codexes, Ork codexes etc. All of these use the existing dex and models and can be done with only slight tweeks, while offering opportunities for revised models ala marine codexes.

Here’s some easy derivations of codexes since V4, plus chaos and IG:

Codex Tau:
Codex Farsight enclaves
Codex Tau Hammerwind (mechanized forces of the 3rd expansion)
Codex To the Stars (forces utilized in the First Tau expansion)

Chaos:
Codex Galaxy at War – Chaos Lost and the Damned and Traitor lists
Codex Khorne
Codex Slaanesh
Codex Nurgle
Codex Tzeentch
Codex Malal er…nevermind

Eldar:
Codex Exodite
Codex Pirate
Codex Reconquista (Eldar returning to power)
Codex Craftworld…Biel Tan through Sam Hain

Nid
Hive Fleet Kraken
Hive Fleet Leviathan
Hive Fleet Juggernaut
Hive Fleet Bob

IG
Codex Hammer of the Emperor (mechanized formations)
Codex Siege Brigades (Baran Siege Masters and Warriors of Krieg)
Codex Death from Above (Elysians and Harkonnen airborne formations)
Codex Feral Worlds (warrior cultures featuring Ogryns, warrior weapon dudes and rough riders)
Codex Tech Guard



But they don’t.

Slaaneshi Slave
14-12-2006, 19:34
They do, they are called Imperial Armour.

jfrazell
14-12-2006, 19:39
Last I saw Imperial armor never did anything for eldar, chaos, and Orks. Why are you suggesting that the non-marine lists be relegated to FW? If you're following that train of thought, why not just have codex marines and codex non-marines?

Slaaneshi Slave
14-12-2006, 19:45
Last I saw Imperial armor never did anything for eldar, chaos, and Orks. Why are you suggesting that the non-marine lists be relegated to FW? If you're following that train of thought, why not just have codex marines and codex non-marines?

I'm not saying they SHOULD do that, I am just saying there are alternative lists for at least Imperial Guard and Tyranids in there, and eventually most armies will get one.

The Emperor
14-12-2006, 19:49
But they don’t.

I doubt Elysians will sell as much as Dark Angels or Black Templars. Being cheap to make is only part of the equation. Making a lot of money on it is the other half.

As for Chaos, it's rumored that each Chaos God will get their own Codex. But then again, Chaos does sell more then most other armies. In both 40k and Fantasy.

MrBigMr
14-12-2006, 19:54
I don't "hate" marines. Everyone can play what ever they want. But I don't like marines, because they're steroid pumped, doped up, brainwashed gobots who see murder as some glorious triumph.
Russ (and rest of the Space Wolves) is the only Marine I can stand, because he might be a insane murdering bastard, but at least he doesn't try to cover it in righteousness.

Getz
14-12-2006, 20:01
If you dont like the generic marine armies, theres plenty of interesting alternatives so yeah..

But It's not about me making a Marine army, it's about all the other guys that I end up playing, with all their bog standard marine armies that are all but identical except for the colour scheme...

Except, to be fair, I personally don't have that problem, but do you see the fallacy in your arguement?


There has been a very recent increase in marine-hate on these boards; im not entirely sure where its all popped up from all of a sudden, its like somebody left the tap on a few years back and now the dam has burst.

Ash

Actually I think there's been a flood of "Why does everyone hate Marines threads" rather than more people actually hate marines than before.


They do, they are called Imperial Armour.

There is no point comparing £50 books like the Imperial armour series with Codexes. Only IA1 has a genuinely different army list in it - IA2 has no list at all and IA3 and 4 contain a couple slightly varient Guard lists - only D99 being dramatically different from whats in the IG Codexs.

There are currently 5 Imperial SM codexes available, and to be honest only one of them outside of the Core Codex needs to exist -the Space Wolves. What difference is there really between the Blood Angel Codex, Dark Angel codex and Black Templars codex and their parent list? A couple of tweaked units and a handful of special rules that could be incorporated into a single volume that would still be thinner than a "proper" codex...

Certainly if Dark Angels deserve a separate Dex then so do IG Armoured Company - and what about the Feral Ork and Kult of Speed lists, or Kroot Mercenaries for that matter...


I've been around it. I played quite a bit in the decade leading up to 1998. I didn't like the dumbing down of the game. I'm over it now. We've dumbed down everything else in Western Society...

I think it's fair to say that Marines weren't quite so much the favoured sons back in 2nd ed (in fact, I rember them as being quite hard to use...).

That has a lot to do with the current hostility to all things MEQ (hell, the fact that the term MEQ even exists and is in common usage says it all...)

Brother Ranz
14-12-2006, 20:04
What's "BOG"???

What's wrong with playing against a force similar to yours? That's not so bad in chess, right?

Acolyte of Bli'l'ab
14-12-2006, 20:05
But It's not about me making a Marine army, it's about all the other guys that I end up playing, with all their bog standard marine armies that are all but identical except for the colour scheme...

Except, to be fair, I personally don't have that problem, but do you see the fallacy in your arguement?.

That comment wasnt aimed at you, but a general statement, I wasnt really arguing, sorry if that wasnt made clear, im not the most articulate person. Personally I dont play much, but the people I have in my area have some quite interesting and well converted marine armies with interesting fluff and backround too. They arent "all identical except for the colour scheme". Allthough this is just my experience.

Karhedron
14-12-2006, 20:06
Marine hate is largely a product of 3rd edition and stemmed from two main factors.

Armour saves. In the switch from 2nd to 3rd edition, armour save modifiers were dumped. This basically resulted in a big boost to the survivability of any infantry with a 3+ save or better. Troops with 4+ or worse died quickly to common anti-infantry weapons like the heavy bolter while 3+ troops just kept coming. This sharp cut-off in effectiveness of armour made a big difference and seemed to experienced players like a rather unfair advantage.
Models. Marines have always received the lions share of new models but 3rd edition was the most marked for this. While Orks and Eldar had to make do without basic vehicles like battle wagons and wave serpents, Marines got existing models like Predators and Rhinos redone. A lot of people felt that Marines were getting stuff at the expense of other armies. The vast array of Marine-variant army lists made this situation worse. It seemed that Marines got roughly 50% of the development attention on 40K whilst all the other armies had to share the remaining 50% between them.

4th edition has seen the situation improve somewhat. Each army that gets codexed now gets a decent range of minis. Even so, Marine-hatred became ingrained in many gamers after 6 years of extremely biased development. The new Nid, Tau and Eldar codices have been of a very high quality and accompanied by nice new model releases. My big hope is that Marine-hatred will fade as more players take up other races.

Skyweir
14-12-2006, 20:10
That's the thing, though. To do such an army would cost VASTLY more then a Space Marine Codex. With a Space Marine Codex, you just have to make a couple differences to an already existing and exhaustively playtested list, put out a Chapter specific sprue, a handful of units and pewter figures, and that's it. With a new alien army, however, they'll have to create the race wholly from scratch, write background material, do intensive playtesting, and create an entire miniature range. The costs that go into a Marine Codex like, say, Dark Angels, is chump change in comparison to making a brand new army.

The way I see it, putting out a Marine Codex for GW is like going getting free cash, in terms of costs versus returns. That, more then anything else, is why I think they tend to release Space Marine Codex's inbetween other releases. Take Orks, for instance. That Codex will likely entail a huge amount of work, the kind that went into Codex: Eldar. They need to completely redo the Codex, playtesting, invent new units, and replace a large chunk of the miniatures range, as well as making new models (like the rumored Ork modular vehicle kit). That's a large and, likely, expensive undertaking.

Black Templars, however, probably took a lot less effort and money to produce. So they make them on the cheap, collect their cash, and splurge on cool stuff for the next army. I'd like more alien races, too, but don't expect to see variant Space Marine Codex's disappear.

But then again, if they updated the other armies in a more timely fashion, there wouldn't be the need to splurge on playtesting and new models each time those armies got a new codex...

As for the tap being left on, yes I do think it has. GW has left the tap open by focusing single mindedly on one army in the game, and for me at least the dam has burst.

So, unlike many others in this thread, I do hate marines. Not the army and concept as such, not the Heresy or the other background stuff. I hate the fact that this game seems to revolve around them and that most people seem to see nothing wrong in making this game into Marinehammer.

Bloodknight
14-12-2006, 20:11
If I counted correctly after Index Astartes there were 32 Marine variant lists. That may have to do with it, as they were just marines after all.
I have no problems with Marines, but find them rather boring to play against. Thankfully my old group had at least no Imperial SM player.

IncrediSteve
14-12-2006, 20:13
Ultramarine hate is something that occurs in pockets here and there and gets blown out of proportion by overly vocal forumgoers, and let it sink in because they're the ones on the box.

Were you to listen to them, you'd think every store had 7 Ultramarines players and only 3 that used other armies. In some places this may be the case.

For me it's always been different. I got into 40k in mid 3rd edition not too long after Armageddon came out, and black Templars were all the rage, and so were Wolves and Angel Chapters. Ultramarines were actually unique, aside from being on most boxes.

In a completely different city in the same state, the store I now go to, no one had ever even seen an actual Ultramarines army before. Actual quote: "So what you got? Whoa, are those Ultramarines? Huh, I've never actually seen them before."

I collect third company, with the red trim, Scourge of the Xenos, and convert my models a fair bit and throw in plenty of Tyranid hunting goodies, and do not have a single lascannon in my army [and yet have beaten an armored company. Also only 2 assault cannons and 1 missile launcher in 1500pts]

End of unnecessary 2% of local currency.

Getz
14-12-2006, 20:25
That comment wasnt aimed at you, but a general statement, I wasnt really arguing, sorry if that wasnt made clear, im not the most articulate person.

Of course you weren't having a go at me, I hadn't yet posted on the thread. I just wantedto point out the the crux of your "Debating position" was flawed


Personally I dont play much, but the people I have in my area have some quite interesting and well converted marine armies with interesting fluff and backround too. They arent "all identical except for the colour scheme". Allthough this is just my experience.

And mine too, although I can say with absolute certainty that if I played at my local GW I would find myself in exactly the nightmare scenario I described earlier...

My point was simply this. There's no point appealing to us about the vast potential variety in the Marine list - many of us don't actually play Marines (I play pretty much exclusively Guard armies) - It doesn't matter how much vartiety there is in the list if none of the Marine players we actually encounter over the tabletop are using it...

The Song of Spears
14-12-2006, 20:25
I can't help but notice that there seems to be a higher frequency of UK/Euro posters on this kinda stuff.

Is it just me or did the US miss out on the marine hate? Plenty of people here play Marines, heck people even congratulate me for playing Raven Guard. No one has ever nayed my Iron Warriors.

I play at 4 different stores, only 1 of them a GW store, with about a total of 50 different people. I see very sadly few orks but other than that it runs the gamut. And no one seems to complain about a army consistently.

Getz
14-12-2006, 20:39
I suspect the problem may well be abundance of GW Stores in the UK and the way in which they serve as games clubs for, shall we say, younger, less imaginative players...

Personally I avoid playing at them like the plague - even though I get on relatively well with my local staff - precisely because if I want a challenging, tactical game I'm not going to get one against a twelve year old with an army that's been dipped into a pot of emulsion.

The only thing worse is "Veterans" night. <shudder> I can think of few things worse than standing around in a room of whiney sixteen year olds who are convinced that they know everything about the game and constantly interupt my games in order to tell me how I should improve my army (or equally common, how their army is better than mine), despite the fact that I've been playing for longer than most of them have been alive...

The Song of Spears
14-12-2006, 20:54
I can count the number of GW stores in the US on my hands, no feet needed :p

If you want to play warhammer here, you have to go to a indy retailer. In that case no one is selling you anything in particular, they are just as likely to recommend Confrontation as they are Space Marines or Tyranids or Hero Clix.

So the kiddies here buy what they think looks cool, and thats pretty random, but the dorks who insist they are gods gift to Warhammer are sadly here too, and just as mouthy. :rolleyes:

but even still, no marine hate anywhere i have been here. (in colorado, new mexico and kentucky at least)

what we have here is a strong hatred of 3rd ed from the older players who played 2ed and back. I dare say nearly 70% of all 40k players completely abandoned the game where i live when 3ed came out. and very very few have come back. i cant even get some of them to try just a single game with me they are so jaded. :(

(sadly Confrontation is not doing well here due to really poor marketing)

t-tauri
14-12-2006, 21:34
We've made the point. Let's all try and spell and punctuate correctly for everyone's benefit.

Now let's get this back on the well worn track of Marine Hate rather than a meeting of "Grammarians Anonymous".

Kahadras
14-12-2006, 21:36
I think most 'Marine hate' nowadays is a knee jerk reaction. People are inclined to blame Space marines for their woes. Just lost a game versus Marines? Their codex is over powered. Your particular army not up for a new codex yet? It's all those Marine codicies they keep bringing out etc etc.

In my club we've had four or five new starters to 40K and only ONE of them chose to go with Marines as his first army. Hell we had more people take up Tau than Marines (3rd ed Tau codex, 4th ed Marine codex).

One of the nice things about the Marine codex is the massive variety that you can get with it. Similar army builds seem such a shame when there is so much more on offer. I don't hate Marines but what I do hate is players being pushed into stupid army builds in serch of the 'perfect' army. I'm sure we've all seen examples of this. Assault cannon are good, take as many as possible. 5/6 man laz/plas squads are the best, take as many as possible. Pred annihilators with heavy bolter sponsons are great all rounders, take as many as possible. No wonder Marine armies start looking awfully similar.

Kahadras

jfrazell
14-12-2006, 21:38
I will say though, that if someone brings painted marines, especially lovingly converted, artfully painted, works of art for each individual marine, then any boredom goes away. As my artistic skills would make a billygoat puke, this is especially nice. With the availability of plastics, marines have the best options for painting and converting (both Imp and Chaos).

Skyweir
14-12-2006, 22:12
Your particular army not up for a new codex yet? It's all those Marine codicies they keep bringing out etc etc.

Well, it most likely is.

golembane
14-12-2006, 22:44
I started off with marines(Dark Angels way back when), and I quickly grew bored and moved onto Eldar.

Later on I introduced my wife to the game and she picked up tyranids, but she just couldn't get the hang of it, but when GW published the Index Astartes rules for the Emperor's Children, she instantly fell in love with them. She spent 6 hours painting her demon prince alone.

I love playing games with her because she plays to the character of the armor instead of the power of the army. In one battle my Wraithlord(was playing Iyanden at the time) destroyed her demon possessed predator, and she laugh as the explosion killed two of her own people and none of mine.

I've invited about 6-7 other people to get into Warhammer 40K and I believe 4 of them picked up marines. that wasn't so bad, but when I asked their reason for it they said 'because they are all around the best army'... That kind of irritated me.

I beat them regularly, but in the end I don't find enjoyment out of it because their forces are almost all identical, and most went the spray can method of painting. no real heart put into their armies at all, but everything min/maxed for efficient killing(of course didn't make up for their terrible tactical skills).

So I guess I don't really have marine hate per se, but I do tend to be wary of marine players much more often these days.

Kahadras
14-12-2006, 22:50
Well, it most likely is.

Not really. I see the marine codicies as a lot less bother to make then say the Eldar or Ork codex which needs a hell of a lot more work doing on them (mainly modeling but also quite a lot of rules changes). Armies books like BT and DA are a lot easier as most of the models are already out. All that's needed is some new/modified rules and a few new sprues. While this is being done all the work that is needed for the 'bigger' jobs (such as the orks) can be going on in the background.

IMHO if GW didn't bring out the 'smaller codicies' it probably wouldn't impact much on the time table for the larger ones.

Kahadras

Baneboss
14-12-2006, 22:56
Not really. I see the marine codicies as a lot less bother to make then say the Eldar or Ork codex which needs a hell of a lot more work doing on them (mainly modeling but also quite a lot of rules changes). Armies books like BT and DA are a lot easier as most of the models are already out.

This is quite a common argument but it doesnt appeal to me. WFB had new edition followed shortly by Orcs and now Empire. Both featured new plastics and miniatures. Orcs have like 10 different goblin heroes.

Kahadras
14-12-2006, 23:11
This is quite a common argument but it doesnt appeal to me. WFB had new edition followed shortly by Orcs and now Empire. Both featured new plastics and miniatures. Orcs have like 10 different goblin heroes.

True but we don't know how many people work on Warhammer compared to 40K (unless someone can confirm that the development teams are the same size).

GW redid their first five lists (SM, Tau, Tyranids, BT and Eldar) because they felt that these were the armies that most needed a redo (not too sure about Tau but generaly agree with the rest). Why no Orks then? GW knows that they badly need redoing and there is quite a bit of support out there for the Greenskins so why bother with DA? In terms of 'needing a fix' they come quite far down the list (even after SW and BA IMO) and aren't that popular to have a groundswell of people demanding a 4th ed codex.

Kahadras

Reflex
14-12-2006, 23:28
i phase in and out of marine hate, but for me alot of it comes from what army i am playing at the time... so i will admit it, i have ranted about marines, but there is always a soft spot for them in me... i mean where would the game be without man's finest? some backally in london looking all dirty and creepy i tell ya!

the reason why marines are so big, imo is because they are so easy... its like playing the game on easy mode... they are easy to play with, not hard to understand rules wise, (i think the only thing i had trouble with, when i fist started playing, was the they shall know no fear rule... because i had no idea what was going on...)

i find it hard to resist the calling of marines... but i got sick of playing marine V marine games, so i went to eldar about a god year back... so i have marine V eldar games...

good thing i am seeing atm is the Tau exspansion... they are quite popular because they get a good wrap by GW which IMO is good so now there is a bigger mix of armies coming about on a regular basis...

there always has been a mix, but now it is becoming more aparent.

marine hate is a phase thing, everyone spirals in and out of it... i remember i used to hate the imperium because they didnt have skimmer technology (part from marines) yet 4 non imperium armies have it... ignorant imperium... then i loved them for being ignorant..

personal opinion is all it comes down to... kahadras comes up with some intersing points too...

i have a sneeking suspicion that they pull the codecies out of a hat... ok marine codex first... next hat (the non marine army hat) oh, look Tau then nids..., ok marine hat... oh Black Templars... ok non marine hat... etc....

ashc
14-12-2006, 23:34
regarding army release order: Marines and nids would have been completed first as they are in the battle for macragge set; for the other books im fairly sure they decided to go through army books that were fairly easy/didn't need too much tinkering to fix first to then give them more time to think about what to do with others; did anyone else here this?

Ash

luchog
14-12-2006, 23:53
I don't know, Tau are a popular choice as well nowadays, in a few years time we may see "Tau hate"

I think it's because they are used by everyone, and a lot of them are ultramarines, which ticks people off, Other chapters are not hated as much in my experience

Hardly likely, since Eldar have consistently outsold Tau, and still account for no more than 7-8% of total sales.

luchog
15-12-2006, 00:06
Eldar:
Codex Exodite
Codex Pirate
Codex Reconquista (Eldar returning to power)
Codex Craftworld…Biel Tan through Sam Hain


Can't speak for the others, but this isn't workable in nearly the same way. Exodites would require a huge investment, since they're essentially an entirely seperate world, the same way that Dark Eldar are. Pirates are not workable, since their role is essentially covered by DE in the current world. Reconquista is too far along the timeline, and nowhere near being accomplishable. Craftworld was done, was done badly, and was shitcanned (and it's Saim Hann). And the current Eldar codex is Craftworld Eldar anyway.

The way to expand the Eldar would be with the current (Craftworld) Eldar, a revamped Dark Eldar, a new Exodite Eldar, and an Eldar: Harlequins codex. Once that's done, you've pretty much covered all the worthwhile possibilities for Eldar. Prediction: not a chance in hell of happening. If we're lucky, we'll see a revamped Dark Eldar within three years. Exodites will never happen, period, because it would need to be built from the ground up, and require far too much time and resource investment. Harlequins may, but i'm not going to hold my breath until it does. It's simply too small a niche. But we will see at least one new minor-variant or updated Space Marine codex release every year, regardless.

GW simply doesn't really care that much about anything but Space Marines. If they could get away with it, they'd probably ditch DE entirely. AAMOF, I'm willing to bet that they will, given the current time frame and resource allocation. Tau they won't, because it's their link to draw in the anime geeks who otherwise wouldn't bother. Eldar are solid, because their one of the oldest non-SM races, and the SMs need someone to beat up on besides each other. Orks are probably good as well, but they'll probably never get the long-term support that even the Eldar get. SM/CSM are the cheapest to produce, and have the highest profitability, so they're going to keep hammering on them as long as they can keep their margins high enough.

luchog
15-12-2006, 00:09
GW redid their first five lists (SM, Tau, Tyranids, BT and Eldar) because they felt that these were the armies that most needed a redo

No, GW redid these because these are their big moneymakers. SM (BT are simply an SM variant) are their golden boy for sales, having the highest profit margin. Tau are their rising star, and their link to the Japanese mecha fans, Edlar and Tyranids are their next biggest sellers, and their oldest and most established Xeno lines.

Acolyte of Bli'l'ab
15-12-2006, 00:10
On Exodites ; I think they are a project best suited for Forge World IMHO.

Kahadras
15-12-2006, 00:11
If they could get away with it, they'd probably ditch DE entirely.

I wouldn't be suprised. There wasn't much enthusiasm for the race when it first came out (at least not from anybody I knew). I really don't think this can be blamed on the Marines though more a poor concept and less than amazing models (at least in my eyes)


No, GW redid these because these are their big moneymakers.

This makes very poor business sense to stick your five biggest money makers at the start.

Marines were out first due to the fact that their codex was the oldest (and one of the weakest). Tyranids due to their inclusion in the starter box set and the possible fact that shooting got a bit more powerful in 4th ed. Tyranids are now better at shooting (take from that what you may). Logicaly Eldar should be next according to the fact that far more people play them than play Tau (comming off GW sales figures anyway) but they weren't.

BT were long reviled as an 'easy to win with army' so GW decided to fix that. Easy job as all they needed were a few rules changes and a couple of 'bits and pieces' sprues. This gave them more time to work on the more 'complex' problem of Eldar. Again an army that had come in for quite a lot of flak for being unbalanced and in need of an overhaul.

If GW was looking for money makers thay would have had Marines (lots of varients) and Eldar out first.

Kahadras

Bloodknight
15-12-2006, 00:16
When the DE came out they had better models (much plastic and multipart figures, Marines got that slightly later) than Marines at that time. I think it has much to do with the unfair starter box, where DE seemed just weak. The had less points, no AT-Weapon and no vehicle while marines came with a flamer, a missile launcher and a landspeeder with heavy bolter. It was actually no problem to wipe the DE out in less than 3 turns.

ncc_drkstar
15-12-2006, 00:24
Marine hate is very misplaced. First of all, a large amount of Marine players is a given when you have such a large fluff and unit base. As a new marine player myself, I tried to avoid buying the most popular, but based on what I liked appearance wise, the fluff support, the amount of models (for flexibility), and the tactical possibility Marines won out. And its this that appeals to a lot of new players (8 year olds aside).

I think you'd see a lot more support for other armies if they possessed more depth. I mean, Marines not only have all these special rules for making your own chapter, but seperate Chapters with varied units and rules. And then there's Chaos, which is an even larger twist. Look at the Tyranids. They really lack any form of individuality or strong fluff support. But that appeals to certain players... its just going to be fewer players.

As for DE, I would agree with Bloodknight and Kahadra. The models are quite ugly and there's really nothing interesting going on there. Otherwise, I would have gladly played DE (given their tactics and the idea of them).

Acolyte of Bli'l'ab
15-12-2006, 00:39
As for DE, I would agree with Bloodknight and Kahadra. The models are quite ugly and there's really nothing interesting going on there. Otherwise, I would have gladly played DE (given their tactics and the idea of them).

Yeah, I think they get off on a bad-start with an underdeveloped concept and not very good models, and that is the reason they are not very popular. I think the best way to introduce a new race is like the original necrons, just a very small range to kind of "Test things out", but thats getting off topic sorry.

JaBoK
15-12-2006, 01:01
I don't know why marine hate even exists any more. Seriously, more newbs play tau than marines, and tau actually have a few reasons to be hated. Markerlights, and the fact that on a terrain empty table they gain an advantage.

John Vaughan
15-12-2006, 01:03
There is nothing wrong with marines, but most players are under the impression that they must choose a chapter to play. I decided to make my own, a deviation from the Ultramarines, with Captain Sicarius as their leader. He leads them because there was a dispute between him and Marneus Calgar, about whether or not infiltrate was a worthy way to fight. Marneus didn't think so, so Sicarius, along with those loyal to his ideas broke away from the Ultramarines to create the "Black Bolts" chapter.

They are pretty much the same as regular marines, except they have the minor deviation "See But Don't Be Seen." They also have the "Death Before Dishonor" disadvantage, to follow along Sicarius believing it was an honorable way to fight.

Colorwise, they are very similar. They are blue like the Ultramarines, but it is a slightly darker hue. Rather than the omega symbol on the shoulder, they have a lightning bolt. Their shoulder pads are trimmed in black, rather than yellow/gold, and tabards and such accents are in red.

This is my lovely chapter, which dosn't have much tank support, which also follows the background, as few followed Sicarius. Most people don't like Sm because there is little deviation from the stereotypical Templars, or other GW invented chapters. Thats how I like my Marines!

Getz
15-12-2006, 01:04
I don't know why marine hate even exists any more. Seriously, more newbs play tau than marines, and tau actually have a few reasons to be hated. Markerlights, and the fact that on a terrain empty table they gain an advantage.

Please. Play with Tau for a bit and then come back when you know what you're talking about...

Without terrain, Tau are very vulnerable to enemy firepower. Their units are only resilient when they are able to limit the amount of incoming firepower. As for Markerlights, although I personally consider them useful, there are whole swathes of Tau players who think they're a complete waste of points...

Gensuke626
15-12-2006, 02:06
I decided to skip a bunch of this thread to say one thing.

I love marine armies, cuz da beekies give my Choppaz somfink ta do! On Geqs they'z just more spensive ccws, but take em to a beekie, or a big beekie and watch da blood flow!

WAAAGH!

Drasriath
15-12-2006, 07:15
Mostly, the marine hate is because of the prolific ammount of marine collectors and players. WAY too many people play marines, and GW knows this. This means Marines get the most fluff about them, the most stories glorifying them, the most rules in White Dwarf, the most options of near any army, and finally they always tend to be frustratingly powerful.

Next time Eldar get a novel (And don't quote the CS Goto books, because anyone knows they're only about Eldar getting killed) or 15 codexes, or rules updates in more than a third the White Dwarf I've seen, then maybe I'll stop hating marines, but for now it annoys me that they get ALL the love from the players, the authors and the developers at Games Workshop.

BrainFireBob
15-12-2006, 07:47
There has been a very recent increase in marine-hate on these boards; im not entirely sure where its all popped up from all of a sudden, its like somebody left the tap on a few years back and now the dam has burst.

Ash

Eye of Terror closed, Ash.

ObiWayneKenobi
15-12-2006, 12:04
There is "marine hate" simply because there are far too many Marine players and, of course, because GW favors Marines more than the other races combined because there are a lot (read: too many) of Marine players, thus more people play Marines which means GW favors them more which... turns into a rather nasty infinite loop. I personally have nothing against Marines; I enjoy the army. In fact the only reason I chose not to create a new Marine force when I got back into 40k was BECAUSE there are so many Marine players I wanted something new... its rather boring fighting what amounts to the same type of army nearly every game not to mention its nigh impossible for fluff reasons (barring the old "It's a training simulation" crap) unless one Marine force is a Chaos faction (which mine would have been. Alpha Legion FTW).

jfrazell
15-12-2006, 12:25
Not really. I see the marine codicies as a lot less bother to make then say the Eldar or Ork codex which needs a hell of a lot more work doing on them (mainly modeling but also quite a lot of rules changes). Armies books like BT and DA are a lot easier as most of the models are already out. All that's needed is some new/modified rules and a few new sprues. While this is being done all the work that is needed for the 'bigger' jobs (such as the orks) can be going on in the background.

IMHO if GW didn't bring out the 'smaller codicies' it probably wouldn't impact much on the time table for the larger ones.

Kahadras

Or they COULD DO THE SAME EXACT THING for "in between" non-marine codexes. Minimal additional effort and minis.

jfrazell
15-12-2006, 12:29
Please. Play with Tau for a bit and then come back when you know what you're talking about...

Without terrain, Tau are very vulnerable to enemy firepower. Their units are only resilient when they are able to limit the amount of incoming firepower. As for Markerlights, although I personally consider them useful, there are whole swathes of Tau players who think they're a complete waste of points...

Good point Getz.

Son of Makuta
15-12-2006, 13:05
There are waaaaaaaaay too many Marine players: one gaming night I went to featured one Tyranid army (me) and 10-12 MEq armies. EVERYBODY THERE EXCEPT ME HAD A SM/CHAOS ARMY. I like Chaos, because they're cool, but there're too many of them in my local club. My future Alpha Legion contingent will be part allied Ork - it's really one big conversion more than an army though!!

Shadow Lord
15-12-2006, 13:05
After reading through this entire thread it seems that "hate" is a too strong a word to use. It's more of a "marine-overload and it's about time it ends"-thinggie then something else. The real marine-haters are really a minority of the gaming population. But if we're all fed up by the attention the SM's get, then maybe we should end this thread as it only speaks about yet more...Space Marines...:eek:

Baneboss
15-12-2006, 14:12
The situation we have currently (too many SM players) could be easily changed by GW if they only wanted to.

If only GW gave a little more love to other races along with plastics etc we would see more of them. Give me new orks vehicles, less gorilla look plastics and i will collect them anyday.

Other races dont appeal so much as SM because GW itself doesnt want to change this. There is no point here that new SM 'dexes need much less work. SM devastators at least have miniatures now. Concentrate on other races instead of 7th Chaplain model in a row.

There is one thing for sure. We shouldnt blame players that like SM. We should blame GW that makes those SM too likeable :/

Shadow Lord
15-12-2006, 14:17
There is one thing for sure. We shouldnt blame players that like SM. We should blame GW that makes those SM too likeable :/

Very true words, you speak, Baneboss!

Giltharin
15-12-2006, 15:14
I don't hate SM, I love them and I'm gonna give a kiss to each of them ... why of course with my 'quin kiss gautlet :cheese:

SM hate comes from very different sources: too many marines, I can't kill the marines ..... anyway none really justify hate for 2.8 cm plastic toys, does it?

Cheers
Giltharin

Captain Stuart
15-12-2006, 15:29
There's a lot of reason for marine fatigue. Marines are common whenever I go outside my playing group. But there's other factors that I think contribute to this phenomenon. Some of these are likely planned by GW and others were probably unforeseen.

I believe 3rd edition was when all the marine-philia started. The new ruleset, particularly the AP system began to favor the T4, Sv3+ armies. Competitive play began to be organized by GW. Games Workshop began a human-centric policy when it came to background.

When I played 1st and 2nd edition I'd only get to play in (edit) games at gaming conventions. That meant I might get to play against strangers once a year. There was a wide variety of armies and the game organizers focused more on scenarios than what I have seen in Grand Tournaments and Rogue Trader Tournaments. The current GW organized tourney system emphasizes battle and armies that are versatile and capable of handling different threats. Space Marines, and Chaos Space Marines fill that bill.

The human-centric approach to background minimizes the empathy players feel for non-Imperial armies. The human-centric approach frames everything non-human in negative, misunderstood frames. Fiction and background which is so important in the gothic universe is slanted against xenos. In RT days, xenos races were actually credited with doing things whether it was the warp gates of the Eldar, the force field supremacy of the Orks, or even the inventive, idiot savant Jokaero. A lot of that is simply forgotten now as background focuses on chapter origins, which chapters are participating in the campaign du jour, and we get posters of marine equipment schematics.

I'm not sure why Imperial Guard players aren't as prolific as marines players. I suspect it is something akin to why so many people prefer to play Germans in WW2 mini games. They're seen as "the elite" with the best of everything. Few people want to play Captain Oblansky when they can play Sammael, Master of the Ravenwing.

Marines get a lot of attention from the modelling side. Not only do the marines get models resculpted before other armies, they get models that appeal to a limited number of players (such as the Venerable Dreadnought or the Deathwatch shoulder pads) well before other armies receive basic transports or plastic models. GW seems to be using the Codex releases as a means of expanding the plastic marine line. After Dark Angels are out, what is left in the marine list that isn't in plastic? I think Scout bikers aren't plastic yet. Anything else?

Given the increasing price of GW product I'm not sure a horde army like Orks will be viable in the long run. Tyranids seem to be evolving towards a small mcount, high cost, model army. Can many players afford a 2K point Ork army when they do come out? Mech Tau and Eldar also seem to rely on fewer models in the current edition.

Collecting an army that doesn't have many models and is almost exclusively plastic offers both financial benefits and modeling benefits. I think the fact that a very large amount of painting coverage covers marines, and chaos with imperial guard thrown in. I rarely see coverage of Eldar, Tau, Ork or Necron models unless a Codex release is near. Is it because it is more difficult to convert metal models than plastic? Is it because GW judges equate space marines as the 40K brand? I don't know, but I would like to see some more variety in painting coverage as well.

What's even more interesting is how or if, GW want to change this. With the decision to abolish Chapter Approved for new units or rules how are GW going to increase attraction to their minis? I hope GW continues to release models in ways that are independent of the Codex release date. Without rule updates and the time between a specific Codex release measured in the 3-5 year range what will keep players engaged? In the past GW would encourage players to get a new army. Given the reasons outlined above many of those armies would be marines (if one didn't start with marines).

Frankly, I don't understand why there isn't a "Codex: non-Codex marines" that details the deviations from the Codex for the big 4 marines. GW makes their money from mini sales so severing the connection between Codex and model release would help all armies IMHO. I think also returning 40K to an omniscient, objective viewpoint would also help people to consider other armies.

luchog
15-12-2006, 18:07
On Exodites ; I think they are a project best suited for Forge World IMHO.

I don't necessarily agree. Enough of the models would be similar enough to WFB Wood/Dark Elves that fewer original sculpts would be needed than for a completely new race. However, I do agree that, if the Exodites do show up, it'll most likely be through Forgeworld. GW simply isn't going to put that much effort into anything that isn't Marines. The fact that the Dark Eldar are going to go nearly a full decade without a signficant update is proof enough of that. Even some of their oldest core races, namely Orks, aren't getting timely upgrades.

Baneboss
15-12-2006, 19:23
The human-centric approach to background minimizes the empathy players feel for non-Imperial armies. The human-centric approach frames everything non-human in negative, misunderstood frames. Fiction and background which is so important in the gothic universe is slanted against xenos. In RT days, xenos races were actually credited with doing things whether it was the warp gates of the Eldar, the force field supremacy of the Orks, or even the inventive, idiot savant Jokaero. A lot of that is simply forgotten now as background focuses on chapter origins, which chapters are participating in the campaign du jour, and we get posters of marine equipment schematics.

That is truth. I would like to see some background about Tau vs Eldar conflict (im very curious). If there is war, Imperium must play first role. Orks must be always the underdogs whether they fight against IG or Tau. Stories about SM are everywhere. SM posters and boxes in GW stores are everywhere too :) If a wall is painted green thats the only thing green in there :)

Mr Zephy
15-12-2006, 19:23
It's ironic that below this topic currently SM players are discussing the merits of the 4 new librarians they will be getting. How many do you need in one army?

BrainFireBob
15-12-2006, 20:22
Of course, if GW is intending to move toward modular multipart plastics for all races, where better to start than with Space Marines?

MrBigMr
15-12-2006, 20:46
Of course, if GW is intending to move toward modular multipart plastics for all races, where better to start than with Space Marines?
All the other armies in the universe?

Karloth Valois
15-12-2006, 20:47
Marine hate is mainly down to the following reasons:

1. The over abundance of marines armies - meaning people play marines as opponents far too often
2. The way GW supports marines so heavily model wise when neglecting even basic parts of other armies ranges
3. Marines have always had a strong set of rules, especially so since the new codex which basically was a huge buff for marines (fotd, assault cannons etc)
4. Marines are somewhat boring to play against

Champion of Biel-Tan
15-12-2006, 22:08
I don't really hate Marines but I REALLY hate the whole Starchild fluff thingie.
I think it's just a piece of fluff to keep more Imperium players. (nobody likes to play the ones who lose) The Good thing about 40K was that it wasn't really humans centered and the Imperium was crumbling. I started Eldar because I like the 'We'll die but we'll do it in style!' style!

John Vaughan
15-12-2006, 23:20
True, SM have very little style. They just follow the orders of the emperor mindlessly.

Kahadras
15-12-2006, 23:51
I started Eldar because I like the 'We'll die but we'll do it in style!' style!


Don't the Eldar have their own idea about one of their own Gods being reborn and defeating Slaneesh yadda, yadda, yadda? Every race has its 'win condition' as it were. The whole idea is the universe is locked in a perpetual conflict where none of these are going to happen. There are no 'good' or 'bad' guys.

Kahadras

HiredSword.
16-12-2006, 00:35
I suppose i do hate marines.


I hate them because after each new release of marine models i just want to put down what i'm doing and buy them. I wish i GW could make me feel this way about other armies but marines seem to have this gravity which just pulls me in everytime i think of what would make a cool army.

But to be fair to gw, i feel the same about imperial guard. :)

Slaaneshi Slave
16-12-2006, 00:45
I hate marine players. The fact that I have two marine armies myself is besides the point. :p

Greatoliver
16-12-2006, 01:59
:rolleyes: I will have to agree with Kahadras on this. Numerous things:

Firstly, you cannot label ideas (as a general point) that are made from many components. For example, you cannot say that Christianity is for the Atheists that want to belong. That's because it's not as there are many aspects of it.
Now putting this into Space Marines (a bit sad), you cannot say they are without style or strategy as that is not always the case.For instance, a Traited army with "Be Swift As The Wind" is a stylish army to play woth that requires strategy to work. I mean, how much more stylish can you get than bikes? There are other ways of playing Marines that are similar in this aspect as well.
But to contradict myself, there are stupid armies that have no grace that are of the Space Marine origin. These are the armies with everything in, the Tactical Squads and the Libraians and the all-Las Pred's and the general pointless combinations of weapons. I agree, they can be boring if they are Flamers, Missile Launchers and Bolters all the way. But they are not all like this.

Secondly, we cannot forget that GW is a company (http://www.digitallook.com/cgi-bin/digital/security.cgi?username=&ac=&csi=12010). They have a certain degree of "human" in them by making being thoughtfull but as it was shown when they closed the Forums, they are still a company. So, why do you all hate Marines? Well, in a sense, it's because they're a great idea that everyone succumbs to.
I bet nearly all of you have a Space Marines somewhere around, be it only undercoated. We buy them in spite of our detest at all the new armies with their Tactical Squads and MLs and Flamers. So GW harnesses this and brings out new models and focuses on them and so all the armies appear. It goes round and round.
From what I suspect, it will always happen. Time to get deep. I like many others have a sort of want to be different. That is to say, I want to be noticed. This is not in an attention seeking way, but perhaps not to be noticed but to be acknowledged. To be seen and not made a fuss of, but still there. I am like this for whatever reason and the word "eccentric" springs to mind, a word I like. So this feeling is a rebellion against the tide and in 40K, that it Space Marines. So you all (all who do) hate Marines, ans I believe that is because you have that feeling. Perhaps hate is too big of a word, perhaps you find Marines "repulsive".
But on the other hand, you get them. I am talking about the Marines players that you hate, the silly people. The people who mix weapons in a silly way. Why? That's what they do in the codex. They are the people who follow the trend and this leads them to Space Marines. Now of course, they are appealing as they have (at first ) interesting fluff and their models are good so there is no complaint. But unluckily, these people are in the majority so they will continue to rule, the cling-ons, the followers, the brain-less. :chrome:
So these types of army will contine to be around until Space Marines hit the grave. Meh, we'll just have to stock up on cement...

Okay, I'd thought I'd better say something about what I have just said. I have made some very broad comments on the type of SM players about and this is what I said you shouldn't do, so I sympathise with the others on how difficult it is to not! Also, I don't mean to offend and if I do, just say and I'll change it...;)

Thirdly, to the main question. Do I loathe Space Marines? Yes and no. I like the strategic and the stylish Marines. They are cool etc. But for the vast majority? Yep, i don't like them. I call the armies I don't like the ML/Flamer armies. They are the amries that are the same, following weapons combinations out of the codex and using models that don't fit in and blah blah blah. But I'll tell yo what, I hate Ultramarines. That's the one army I really dislike. They are the started army, the army that is the basic army you can start off with. The blue Marines are the utter standard of GW with Ultramarines being the most prosperhous Chapter ever. They have no querks at all - they are completely straight. Immensely so. I greatly dislike the whole idea of them, the blandness of seeing a blue army on the table with the same units. That's I don't like about Space Marines - the potential to be nothing. The potential to follow the plan exactly. The brown paper bags, the concrete buildings, the extra-ordinary. And there's that feeling again. The rebellion against the system.

Am I still with Kahadras? I don't know. Find out for yourself.

...Two things to finish:

1: Try playing squash - now that's a game.
2: Anyone ever thought of buying GW shares? :p

Vandur Last
16-12-2006, 02:44
@ Greatoliver
Why hate Ultramarines? In a perfect world every army and race would get the same amount of attention, coverage and codexes. If you took away most of the extra attention lavished upon marines in order to bring them more into line with what the rest of us get, what would you have?
Ultramarines.

So dont hate the Ultramarines just for being marines. Instead hate Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Black Templars and all the other variants of Loyalist and Chaos marines. They are the things that have diverted attention away from your army and the other armies you enjoy encountering.

If marines didnt get army variant "chapters" that covered all aspects of war you wouldnt be bumping into more MEQ's every two matches.
How many people who favour assault armies would still be playing marines if GW had published Ultramarines (codex:Space Marines) and left it at that without putting out Space Wolf and Blood Angel variants?
How many footslogger horde loving players would be plonking yet another 3+ save model on the table if it werent for codex:Black Templars ?
How many fast attack Biker loving players would be zipping around the place if they werent all busy playing Dark Angels or White Scars?


Now heres the big question.
If there was only Ultramarines (codex: Space Marines) How many of the above groups of people, as an example, would be playing one of the other GW armies?
Can you imagine going to a games club or tournament and not knowing what you will face? Imagine if you had an equal chance to meet alot of Ork, Eldar, Immperial Guard or other armies as you do to meet a marine player.
Oh what a wonderful world it would be....

But wait, it doesnt stop there!
What about all the time, energy and effort GW has/currently put into all the marine variants, where would they put their energies instead? Sure some of it could go into fleshing out those forces that need some more attention (Dark Eldar and Orks anyone?) but the bulk of it could go towards new races.
New races that dont wear power armour and make the whole game more lively and interesting, as the Tau have done.

Oh happy day, in the not too distant future when gamestore kids will be heard to comment "whats a chapters specific codex? nevermind im gonna go fight that Jokaero player with my Demiurge battleforce. At least isnt not another Ork player right?"


/emote: gets woozy and falls over from getting too excited

Greatoliver
16-12-2006, 02:55
Firstly, I am annoyed as my indentations screwed up making huge block of text. GD GD GD GD.


@ Greatoliver
Why hate Ultramarines? Ultramarines.

So dont hate the Ultramarines just for being marines. Instead hate Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Black Templars and all the other variants of Loyalist and Chaos marines.

Oh what a wonderful world it would be....

But wait, it doesnt stop there!
As the Tau have done.

Oh happy day - right?

/emote: gets woozy and falls over from getting too excited

I see what you mean. By not making the other Chapters, GW could spend their time making other stuff. But would they do that?
I am thinking about the world at the moment and not about how it could be. I agree that all is needed in the SM Codex and more Traits and it could all be sorted. But, GW are a company and they need an army they can nourish and then make some good cash out of it. It would be nice but it didn't happen.

So, I hate Ultramarines. I don't hate the rest as they're fun to play against and in my opinion, Ultras are in the majority. I play more Ultras than others and I dislike them as they are boring. Traits make them intersting but vanilla Marines are the worst IMHO. They have no flair and playing them is boring.

Thanks for reply.

Hellebore
16-12-2006, 03:00
Like all things, it will evolve.

As soon as GW turn their design efforts to 6 or more Eldar Craftworld lists, or X Ork Klan lists, or hive fleet lists, we will get Eldar hate, ork hate, and tyranid hate in that order.

The mistake being made by people is that it is marines that are hated. It isn't, it's the DESIGN POLICY that is hated. It just so happens that they applied this to marines more than others.

The design policy can be applied not just to codex release, but also points cost, miniature release, and rules construction.

The same thing would have happened to any race, it's just marines that it happened to.

A classic case of "Tall Poppy" syndrome if I ever saw it.

Hellebore

Vandur Last
16-12-2006, 20:08
haha, yeah. Notice i did say all thier marine attention "could" be directed to new armies and projects. We all know in the real world this isnt the case though.

So anyway we appear to be in partial agreement.
You hate the Ultramarines because they are boring to play against.
I maintain that playing the Ultramarines is boring because there are too many marine players because there are too many marines codexes.

Greatoliver
16-12-2006, 21:02
You know what, the words of Vandur Last are coming around to me. this really does have meaning as we've got the DA coming up and this would be better spent on something else green, like Orks (e.g.). And BT never needed to have happened...

I think the best way to have things, for a customer point of view, would have been to make much more changing Traits and them perhaps scrapped all the rest of the Chapter books. This would mean less work on Space Marines and more on the rest but the downside is you get a fair amount of unhappy BA, SW and DA players who want a codex.

So it comes down to the question: Do GW focus on the sections of a race or do they make the basic rules and give you options?

Anyway, with Ultramarines, I loathe them as they are boring to play against and IMO, they are the most common. Plus, I like alternative armies with a bit of spice and they are as bland as over-boiled sprouts. And i suppose I do also loathe the other Chapters with their books as the work that they put into them could have been put into something better.

Think that's all...


Oh happy day, in the not too distant future when gamestore kids will be heard to comment "whats a chapters specific codex? nevermind im gonna go fight that Jokaero player with my Demiurge battleforce. At least isnt not another Ork player right?"

That's rather stylish. I was re-reading and spotted it...Can't wait. ;)

BrainFireBob
16-12-2006, 23:09
You know what, the words of Vandur Last are coming around to me. this really does have meaning as we've got the DA coming up and this would be better spent on something else green, like Orks (e.g.). And BT never needed to have happened...

I think the best way to have things, for a customer point of view, would have been to make much more changing Traits and them perhaps scrapped all the rest of the Chapter books. This would mean less work on Space Marines and more on the rest but the downside is you get a fair amount of unhappy BA, SW and DA players who want a codex.

So it comes down to the question: Do GW focus on the sections of a race or do they make the basic rules and give you options?

Anyway, with Ultramarines, I loathe them as they are boring to play against and IMO, they are the most common. Plus, I like alternative armies with a bit of spice and they are as bland as over-boiled sprouts. And i suppose I do also loathe the other Chapters with their books as the work that they put into them could have been put into something better.

Think that's all...



That's rather stylish. I was re-reading and spotted it...Can't wait. ;)

From a customer point of view, more marine support would in fact be the way to go- realize that most people playing marines=most customers buy marines.

Greatoliver
17-12-2006, 01:02
From a customer point of view, more marine support would in fact be the way to go- realize that most people playing marines=most customers buy marines.

I think you got the wrong end - I was talking about one of us, a customer. We want equal codexes as a whole, not all one army.

GW, on the other hand, want money and by plugging a good product with huge amounts of choice, that's what they are getting.

Marshal2Crusaders
17-12-2006, 02:58
I hate Army Martyrs: the "I play ELdar because they are tactically challenging, I play guard cuz i like guns, and I play anything but marines cuz marines are cheese..." these people dilute the hobby and should give away there armies and get another hobby all you do is bring us down

Maybe if GW made all xenos races easier to buy and paint, marines have alot of flat surfaces ,wereas i cant get my tau to look decent nor can i get any of the codex colors to work with out requiring many layers. and if u think about SM are the cheapest, a tau elite slot cost 60$ a SM elite slot can coust 35-40. Nids need so many models they get expensive fast. It comes to pricing that is why u see so many marine armies

BrainFireBob
17-12-2006, 03:08
I think you got the wrong end - I was talking about one of us, a customer. We want equal codexes as a whole, not all one army.

GW, on the other hand, want money and by plugging a good product with huge amounts of choice, that's what they are getting.

My point is that more customers are marine players. The logic stating otherwise is flawed. If 7% of players want something, and 63% want something else, and you can only do one thing, you go wth 63%.

HalfEvil333
17-12-2006, 03:32
Its a viscious cycle. Marines are the easiest army to collect because the fact it is the most cost effective $$$ wise and the ammount of attention it gets. So it causes more people to collect them. This causes GW to focus on marines, thus continuing the cycle. The only way to break it is to hit them hard enough that they take note. Which would mean causing the sales of the non-Marine items to exceed the Marines by a noticable percentage. Unfortunatly, there is no possible way to cause this, as it would require too many people.

I believe the logic that such a percentage of customers want one thing over the other is flawed if not presented in a balanced way. The current demand for Space Marines is not balanced. With the ammount of focus Marines have already backing them, there is no true competition. Now, if GW would suddenly rewrite the rules so that it doesn't appear that the Marines have obvious advantages over the other armies and the model range was changed so that each basic army costed the same to build, that would be a perfect example of a balanced playing field. As opposed to walking into a GW store and having the Marine boxes jammed into my face.

EDIT: Just wanted to clearify what I meant by having the basic armies cost to build. As it is, Marines have to major advantages over the other armies. One is just the sheer number of plastic kits to metal models. The other is just how effective the points-to-$$$ there boxes are. For example, 10 Marines come in a bow, with the options for squad leader, flamer, and missile launcher with out any need for extra bits bought or convertion work. I don't know the actual cost for said items, but it should come out around 170-180 pts., while the Orks box comes with 16 guys. Seems fair as you need more Orks,except that the Orks come with no extras and are half the cost of the marines, coming out to 110-130 pts. It may not seem like a big difference, until it adds up over time.

Wraithbored
17-12-2006, 04:16
Well I do have a sever case of marine fatigue. I don't like the fact they get the lions share of models, 4th ed codeci are pretty balanced but not in the case of Space Marines. The asscannon and drop pods plus fotd really aggravates me, because they really are no brainer tactics. Or should I say trick ponies?

And really everything that's different between is the colour of the models. PErsonally going down to the gaming club and facing the prospect of playing red marines, blue marines, green marines or maybe the white marines, hell with such variety perhaps I'll play against the black ones. No space marine player where I live shows any bit of originality. IT's all asscannons, tricked out librarians and drop pods. And they are so tedious to play against. It's so repetitive. And the over focus is not helping.

I've disliked space marines since I started playing wh40k over 14 years ago. I'm no veteran but I have been in the hobby long. And I also dislike SM fluff. I'm sick and tired of hearing about how &#252;ber they are. And how 3,5 marines killed over 300 Orks. And the wh40k novels don't help either, when will we see more non space marine fluff being printed? I have yet to see an Ork book(not comic), or a GOOD Eldar book would be nice as well. Or a book where nids win against marines.

Also I dislike the space marine models, their style just doesn't appeal to me. In fact i dislike it. They "Look at my might pectorals und huge pouldrons you little girlie man" [/schwarzy] to me they are a walking, clunking cliche

I guess in my case it's not marine fatigue it really is marine hate. Unimaginative players + oversaturation have really taken their toll. If anyone's offended I am very sorry I did not mean to offend, but that's how I feel and this IS the internet where all gripes are expressed.

And personally I play Eldar and have a small tyranid army. And I can completely understand why people hate my beloved armies. But I fail to see how the hatred for their army is completely unbased and "stupid"? So bassically hating Eldar, Tau or Necrons is ok, but don't you dare hate marines?

IncrediSteve
17-12-2006, 04:22
Or a book where nids win against marines.


Then perhaps the Fall of Malvolion (http://uk.games-workshop.com/tyranids/malvolion/) short story will interest you?

Acolyte of Bli'l'ab
17-12-2006, 04:27
heh, id like more necron centered books myself, but that wont happen :) I also agree on Eldar books, the ones existing are horrid especially that Goto bloke, very poor.

Wraithbored
17-12-2006, 04:28
Then perhaps the Fall of Malvolion (http://uk.games-workshop.com/tyranids/malvolion/) short story will interest you?

IT's ONE SHORT story and i've read it and thorougly enjoyed it. Now I would like something like that except an entire books worth. Personally the part where the marines are getting ripped appart is my fauvorite, because it's seen through the eyes of someone who thought the marines indestructible things of legend. Only to see them bleed and die just like the rest of humanity. This passage I LOVE : "Then Grauss saw the worst sight of all, the worst, most unmanning thing his eyes had ever witnessed. Four Lamenter Space Marines; falling back, overwhelmed."


heh, id like more necron centered books myself, but that wont happen :)

I would like that too, but how to make a necron tell a tale? Perhaps the story of a necron lord recounting his memories of the war in heaven? Or the awakening of the C'tan? IT would make for very interesting reading. Humm or perhaps a Pariah recounting and telling the story as it happnes, like in Dawn of War: Dark crusade? And I have strayed off topic! My bad.

Acolyte of Bli'l'ab
17-12-2006, 04:36
I would like that too, but how to make a necron tell a tale? Perhaps the story of a necron lord recounting his memories of the war in heaven? Or the awakening of the C'tan? IT would make for very interesting reading.

Glad to know im not the only one :) I definitly like the idea of a lord recounting war in heaven memories. You could perhaps even do it so the lords conversion process went wrong slightly so he has more emotions. C'tans could be interesting because im sure theres more than 4 our there, and they seem to be very individual and unique. Theres also of course story ideas like Inquisitors uncovering tombs ect. I like alot of the 40k books, but I think theres still room for more variation personally.

Seth the Dark
17-12-2006, 04:41
I dont really hate Marines except when I'm on the forums as there constant prescence is rather annoying, but gamewise, they don't bother me as there aren't many of their ilk around here.

AngryAngel
18-12-2006, 08:15
Alright as I can for the moment anyways sign on..I'm going to say something on this. I'm a marine player. If I had known when I got involved about all the armies woulda played eldar most likely. As is, I'm with dark angels since 3rd ed. I have to comment in that I've never dealt with marine hate anywhere but on the net.

They aren't the toughest things in existance, everyone knows how to fight them. So all that known I find all the hate unfounded. All those who bash them and who play them, still tell new players to play them. I protest their ease of use. Why they may be jack of all trades master of none all that means is you can't rely on any one thing too much.

That said they have as many negatives as they do positives. They have high armor..but ya know what ? I rarely can enjoy it with all the low ap weapons floating around out there..or armor ignoring close combat attacks. They have good all around stats..but nothing truely amazing anywhere. Their armored units are only so so.

Even this so feared assault cannon doesn't break them apart. Yeah its versatile but then shouldn't it be ? I think the jack of all trades army should have a jack of all trades weapon. As for saying how much better then lascannon it is..the range diffrence means alot. To say it doesn't really is a little nieve. You only even place it on fragile or slow moving units..so its never once lead to victory for me.

If I achieve victory its because of proper placement and movement as well as some luck. I hardly think even an idiot could use them well. That sounds more like the talk of people who wish to downplay any loses to them. Hell if it takes no skill you can always say "Everything worked out for him..and they're more bad ass" or "Even with fighting against assault cannons my superior skill let me win".

That kinda takes away from my enjoyment of the game..and gives every non marine player an easy out. Some way to save face, when isn't it all about having fun and both people winning at diffrent times ? All I hear on here is how broken crazy marines are. Though for all that how no one ever loses to them..how can that be possible ? If they were so broken wouldn't they only rarely lose instead of all of the time ?

I don't mean to snap on anyone but it just pains me to always here on here at least, that its an idiots army. IRL I never hear that even if there are alot of marine armys around. Seems alot of this hate comes from jealously, childishness and general inability to be happy for someone else. You want to hate someone..hate GW for forgetting about others. The players and the army itself isn't whats to blame. Saying you see it too much is a reason is not only shallow, its weak.

I'm sorry new kids use the army, I'm sorry you all feel its everywhere, and I'm sorry you think its so broken it can't ever lose. I guess marines should just shrivel up and die. Have no weapons aside from bolters..and even they may be too good..and 6+ armor saves.

This isn't said to any one person in general its said to marine haters out there in general. Its not you who should hate us. Its us..marine players..who should hate you..for narrow mindedness and army bigotry. To any whom may have been offended apologies. Was simply my intention to defend me and my ilk in what time I could be signed on.

Thank you for your time reading, and happy holidays to all.

ncc_drkstar
18-12-2006, 10:42
Wraithbored:

I can understand being sick of facing red, blue, white, yellow space marines. Its rough. I mean I'm tired of facing blue, white, red, eldar. Or green Tyranids.

I mean that's a rather ridiculous thing to say.

As for the "trick ponies", if they're so common I'd assume you've figured out a way to counter them, no? As for complaining about people using the same tactics... I would wager that the tactics utilized by any faction are generally fairly common. They take obvious strengths (like drop pods or assault cannons) and seek to maximize them. And that applies to every army, not just space marines. And if the space marines were really so amazing, I think we'd see them constantly winning at these tournaments, which I've never seen happen.

Skyweir
18-12-2006, 12:36
The problem isn't really how the army plays, IMO.
It is the way we are forcefed the Space Marines all the time. As I have said in another thread, it has gone so far that people think it is okey for GW to focus every second release on the Marines. That is what annoys me, that we can't have focus on any of the other armies for any length of time. And with their release schedule now lining up the Dark Angels, when at least to Xeno's armies are in desperate need of an update, is a deliberate insult against those who deign play anything other than Space Marines. I think GW should just change the game to Marinehammer, and give out a codex non-Marines for those armies not part of the grand new order.
Then I could finally quit this game....

MrBigMr
18-12-2006, 13:36
I think GW should just change the game to Marinehammer, and give out a codex non-Marines for those armies not part of the grand new order.
Then I could finally quit this game....
But that's just why they don't do it.
They wouldn't like to lose their income, isn't that right, Mr. Potatamoto?
http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/juuso007/Pics/potatamoto.jpg

Baneboss
18-12-2006, 14:34
following some stupid ´god emperor´ just reeks of single mindedness and stupidity. Who would fall for such ´dark age´ idiocy anyway?

What you write is very offending.

Do you mean that if someone belive in Christ - a man we dont even know if existed 2000 years ago - is also stupid?

Its the same with the emperor. Human needs faith. It just happens that emperor faith is dominant in 40k science fiction world. Its not idiocy.

Blagrot Squigbreff
18-12-2006, 14:43
I'm pretty sure he's just being sarcastic Baneboss particluarly if you read the next statement that


Following the will of the farseers and the ethereals on the other hand shows good spirits and style as well as superior tactics.

Which is just as mindless. There's no real comparison to Earth Religions as we rarely charge off slaughtering people because "God" says so (these days anyway). If we stay on this topic too long we'll be locked so I hope that explained it.:)

Sai-Lauren
18-12-2006, 15:23
Not really. I see the marine codicies as a lot less bother to make then say the Eldar or Ork codex which needs a hell of a lot more work doing on them (mainly modeling but also quite a lot of rules changes). Armies books like BT and DA are a lot easier as most of the models are already out. All that's needed is some new/modified rules and a few new sprues. While this is being done all the work that is needed for the 'bigger' jobs (such as the orks) can be going on in the background.
Kahadras
Indeed, cut and paste the stat lines, insert some random references to the Horus Heresy and/or EoT in the fluff section, throw in a few pictures of painted figures, write a battle report for WD and go from there. :rolleyes:

There's no real favoured army in WFB (closest could possibly be Chaos), and IMO, it's a much better universe for it. There's also no official variant lists outside of the now seemingly obsolete SoC ones, the Skaven and Lizardmen ones in Lustria and possibly Kislev (all the variant lists in the back of the old army books were opponent's consent only, were only in to the Vampire Counts release, and are being phased out in the newer books).

The sad thing is that if GW didn't promote Marines so much, they'd almost certainly still sell in the same kinds of numbers, and the extra promotion could be given over to the other armies, thereby increasing their sales and bringing in more money than any losses in sales of marines.

And I had to reply on this point.

Even this so feared assault cannon doesn't break them apart. Yeah its versatile but then shouldn't it be ?
No. It's designed for anti-personnel use in close-quarters fighting. It shouldn't be cracking MBTs and heavier vehicles open. At best, it should be able to just about get through the back armour of a Rhino or Chimera.

Things like Missile Launchers are the versatile, multi-role weapons.

IncrediSteve
18-12-2006, 17:26
No. It's designed for anti-personnel use in close-quarters fighting. It shouldn't be cracking MBTs and heavier vehicles open. At best, it should be able to just about get through the back armour of a Rhino or Chimera.

Are you familiar with the Avenger cannon of an A-10? It's an assault cannon that is designed precisely for just that, cracking MBTs, and does [or did rather, A-10s being retired, shame] a wonderful job of it at that.

Now granted the shells it spits out are the size of the missiles that marines use in 40k, but with more destructive materials found in the 40k universe, it's possible that something of similar effect could be pulled off.

It's not that effective against vehicles in game, at least in my experience, but I'm sure that gets thrown out the window when you've got people with copy/paste army lists cramming in 8 assault cannons, but then what doesn't get thrown out when you've got that kind of attitude?

I would be content with a special rule where the assault cannon's rending didn't extend to vehicles, but it wouldn't feel quite right and ultimately the problem just comes down to abuse.[/redundancy]

Zedsdead
18-12-2006, 17:53
The warseer forums are the most anti Marine forums ive frequented. Most commonly Marine army lists go unanswered to and there is a general hostility twards marine players on these forums. Ive seen marine players refered too as "NO0bs" much more frequently here, then any of the other popular 40 k sites out there. I think part of the problem is the lousy format in which the forums are set-up. These forums lump army lists and tactics together instead of seperating them by race/army. What that fosters, is an atmosphere that condones negative posting by people who dont like another army.

If warseer would get there act together and break these forums down better. You would see more positive posting about marines because it would be from people interested or play that actual army. Instead of posts by Chuckle Heads following the typical marine bashing "mob mentality" thats pretty typical around here.

BTW...this post is in response to the thread creators question, as to why he sees so much Marine hate.

OH.. and azimaith has just posted the typical "cut and paste" reasons why poeople dont like marines. Its the same ole reason ive seen every fanboy of marine hate make.

azimaith
18-12-2006, 17:53
Why do players hate marines?
1: They're giant walking cliches. "Oh look, im a superhuman ultrastrong uber bad-ass-super-brightly colored-good guy-elite-ninja-with-hands-the-size-of-hubcaps-with-kung-fu-grip marines" *Edited for MrBigMr.*
2: They get alot of stuff other armies should have. (Tyranids+Mycetic spores=SM+Drop Pods)
3: They don't have a real weakness if you don't tool against them. Most players who don't play marines may as well go out and thank marines for making so many army lists ungodly bad against them. I know I love it when Las/plas space marine squads designed to fight other space marines are killing 5 point spine gaunts. Yet at the same time its sad. Very sad.
4: Too-many-codex's. Orks are getting a new codex till 2008. I wonder if that has anything to do with the 8trillion marine codex's that are so prolific they come out between every xenos codex.
5: They're often portrayed a good guys which really violates their fluff right up the corn hole.
6: They're just so damn common you can't take a step without it landing on a super mega armored ultra warrior of good.

MrBigMr
18-12-2006, 19:00
Why do players hate marines?
1: They're giant walking cliches. "Oh look, im a superhuman ultrastrong uber bad-ass-super-brightly colored-good guy-elite-ninja-with-hands-the-size-of-hubcaps marine"
You forgot the kung-fu grip.


5: They're often portrayed a good guys which really violates their fluff right up the corn hole.
The winner is always right and good.

azimaith
18-12-2006, 19:23
You forgot the kung-fu grip.

Good catch, added.



The winner is always right and good.
The Americans "Won" against the native americans but its a mark of shame on our nation. So not really. I liked the fluff when they had psychopath marines, not friendly neighbor marines.

BrainFireBob
18-12-2006, 20:27
The problem isn't really how the army plays, IMO.
It is the way we are forcefed the Space Marines all the time. As I have said in another thread, it has gone so far that people think it is okey for GW to focus every second release on the Marines. That is what annoys me, that we can't have focus on any of the other armies for any length of time. And with their release schedule now lining up the Dark Angels, when at least to Xeno's armies are in desperate need of an update, is a deliberate insult against those who deign play anything other than Space Marines. I think GW should just change the game to Marinehammer, and give out a codex non-Marines for those armies not part of the grand new order.
Then I could finally quit this game....


Ignorance.

1) Release schedule's been known for ovr a year. There's no "they decided to do another Marine list."

2) They're extensively redoing several Xenos lists. Dark Eldar and Orks- who most need new dexes- amongst them. That means a long, extended playtest, like they did for Codex: Eldar.

We can have Codex Dark Angels next quarter- or NO new 40K codex until next Christmas.

Give me Codex: Dark Angels.

Getz
18-12-2006, 21:02
We can have Codex Dark Angels next quarter- or NO new 40K codex until next Christmas.


Or GW could get their arses in gear and do the Ork Codex for next spring...

Do you think it's being delayed because it such a hard thing to do? Most Ork Players agree that the rules are more or less fine and just a few units here and there need recosting, or their rules tightening up. The time consuming element is the new art and new models. Why is that taking time - because there's only a finite number of artists and scuplters and they're all tied up doing the art and models for the DA codex...

Another reason why we're getting sick of Space Marines... The self righteous people who come out of the woodwork to defend them.

Seriously, we don't hate Marines, we're just fed up of GW trying to force feed us an army which many of us (the people posting on this thread, that is) have no interest in.

NeonDante
18-12-2006, 21:11
I would love to see someone other then marines in the boxed set. I mean come one, people are still going to buy lots of marine armies, and this way you'll encourage people to try new armies.

Kahadras
18-12-2006, 21:16
Another reason why we're getting sick of Space Marines... The self righteous people who come out of the woodwork to defend them.


I don't think this is very fair. If I composed a 'Guard hate' thread would the people who defended them be 'self righteous' and 'comming out of the woodwork'? Somehow I don't think so.

At the end of the day GW need an army to use as their flagship. If it was Eldar or Guard then those would be the armies being moaned about. Why to Eldar get everything in plastic? Why does everybody play Guard? etc etc.

Kahadras

Acolyte of Bli'l'ab
18-12-2006, 21:16
heh, I would of liked Death korps VS necrons personally in a starter box, but thats just my dream :P

ncc_drkstar
18-12-2006, 21:16
Why do players hate marines?
1: If Space Marines are so cliche, what about Eldar and Dark Eldar? Elves have been around a helluva lot longer then genetically engineered superhumans. Orks are pretty cliche too.
2: This goes back to an old argument, if space marines get all the wicked equipment then why don't they always win? Just becaues Tyranid drop pods haven't been added for whatever reason doesn't siginify a gross imbalance because if it did... Marines would always win.
3: This point has already been made as well, but they don't have realy weakness because they're a jack of all trades force. Thats the idea. They provide a tactical option for those who want that level of inherent versatility.
4: I would imagine part of it is the ease of producing a new Marine codex. I mean, as they're really supplements its bloody easy. And yes, part of it does accord with the belief in higher sales. But to retool the Dark Angels codex isn't nearly the same investment as retooling the whole Ork line.
5: Who portrays them as good guys if not the fluff? The people you play against? I don't see how that could become a large problem unless either the fluff is heavily imbued into the scenario, or they keep saying things like "my lion-hearted space marine smote your dreaded Lictor. Begone."
6: Taken in part with Rebuttal #5, they're so common because they sell and thus receive alot of support. Part of the reason that they sell, is because there are so many bloody factions. I'm not sure if it was the chicken or the egg, but I am pretty certain that if there were just Ultramarines, you wouldn't see as strong sales because they wouldn't be nearly as interesting.

Which is some of the problem other factions suffer with. And yes, I'd like to see more variety for other factions. The problem is its risky and its easier to provide minor supplements like the Dark Angels then large changes like the Space Marine or Eldar or Orks. What would make sense is that they have major changes planned at certain intervals with minor changes like Dark Angels planned in between. As well, part of it is avoiding risk (like redoing the Dark Eldar which everyone agrees they desperately need) which is something that GW seems more interested in right now.

MrBigMr
18-12-2006, 21:20
Or GW could get their arses in gear and do the Ork Codex for next spring...
I'd buy that for a dollar.
I love Orks, even though I'm not an Ork player. They're simply the best. I was planning a realy funny Ork army of purely looted gear. Death Skulls with as much looted stuff as possible. Bolters and all for troops. Can't go more Orkish than that. 1/3 of a chanse hitting the target and 1/6 chanse to hit your friend on the back. And looted tanks, spinning out of control.

Marshal2Crusaders
18-12-2006, 22:29
Orks are taking long becuase they want to make them balanced like eldar

AngryAngel
18-12-2006, 23:01
Said for any of the marine players whom visit here..and as anyone will notice who has played them. The marines biggest weakness is their lack of a main strength. Yeah they are versatile but lack the ability to really specialize the way most other armies can. Declare my words false if you must, marine players understand what I'm saying I'm sure.

As for the comment on the assault cannon being versatile. The one who posted of the A 10 was accurate. That is a diffrent argument however. At the end of the day range will be the deciding factor. Plenty of people will argue with that, but thats fine I've said my peace on that.

I do think the real problem is the fear factor of the assault cannon. People fear it..and they hate having to fear a marine army having too many. Personally thats what I use them for. People will go out of their way to kill whatever carries them so sure they are the end all be all. So for that I think its just no one wants to ever fear marines either.

Hell I fear tyranids in close combat, I fear Tau in shooting. I fear the necrons when I have vehicles and in shooting for they are are a hard as heck to take down for good. I fear eldar for various reasons..and I definatly fear guard for sheer numbers and their tanks. Whats wrong with that ? A fool feels no fear, a brave man does what he must despite it. Nothing wrong with a little healthy respect for another is there ?

@Khadras I've noticed your steady voice on alot of these issues. Keep up the good fight and don't feel your alone. Marine players need someone sticking up for um on the net here, sucks to only have people look down on ya for no reason of your own.

One last thing for the reason why the marines are so heroized. Yeah in a world of only war, no one is truely good..but how in our own world do you judge good or bad ? Many nations could be viewed as evil by one, saints by another. Its just easier to look at the superhuman warriors who defend mankind as good guys. Being humans its easy to relate, its easy to understand how marines are tragic heros.

They fight for a world that was never really their emperors full dream. They give up their life, living as a normal human to die so that others can live. Yeah say they are crazy mindless killers all ya want. Its alot harder to wipe out all thats good in people then ya may think. Thats just my opinion on it.

Nazguire
18-12-2006, 23:43
Codex Tau:
Codex Farsight enclaves
Codex Tau Hammerwind (mechanized forces of the 3rd expansion)
Codex To the Stars (forces utilized in the First Tau expansion)


'Hammerwind' and 'to the Stars' can be easily represented with the current Codex.



Chaos:
Codex Galaxy at War – Chaos Lost and the Damned and Traitor lists
Codex Khorne
Codex Slaanesh
Codex Nurgle
Codex Tzeentch


The Lost and the Damned/Traitor lists I'd love to see properly fleshed out. Everything else is covered via the current Codex.



Eldar:
Codex Exodite
Codex Pirate
Codex Reconquista (Eldar returning to power)
Codex Craftworld…Biel Tan through Sam Hain


Pirates and 'Reconquista' (I'm assuming would be entirely aspect warriors...?) can be done through the current codex with imagination. Craftworld Codex would be appreciated again as would the Exodite...but who do the Exodite fight? Probably not that many enemies.



Nid
Hive Fleet Kraken
Hive Fleet Leviathan
Hive Fleet Juggernaut


Not enough differentiation to warrant a full sub list.



IG
Codex Hammer of the Emperor (mechanized formations)
Codex Siege Brigades (Baran Siege Masters and Warriors of Krieg)
Codex Death from Above (Elysians and Harkonnen airborne formations)
Codex Feral Worlds (warrior cultures featuring Ogryns, warrior weapon dudes and rough riders)
Codex Tech Guard


All of the above asides from perhaps Tech Guard could be represented with Doctrines.

Getz
18-12-2006, 23:51
'Hammerwind' and 'to the Stars' can be easily represented with the current Codex...

Everything else is covered via the current Codex...

Pirates and 'Reconquista' (I'm assuming would be entirely aspect warriors...?) can be done through the current codex with imagination...

Not enough differentiation to warrant a full sub list...

All of the above asides from perhaps Tech Guard could be represented with Doctrines...

I rather think the point is that Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Black Templars could also be easily represented with the SM codex...

Prince Facestab
19-12-2006, 00:09
Orks are taking long becuase they want to make them balanced like eldar

What, but they don't care if the Dark Angels are balanced?

Besides, with as long as it's been, the new Ork and Dark Eldar codexes had better be so balanced that they can replace the set of scales that Lady Justice holds in courtrooms.

Kahadras
19-12-2006, 01:09
I rather think the point is that Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Black Templars could also be easily represented with the SM codex...

They could but would lose a lot of what made them interesting as an army. Background, special rules, special units etc would have to be dropped to prevent the SM codex from ending up bigger then the BGB. No one wants to see their army end up as an apendix or a page worth of rules.


What, but they don't care if the Dark Angels are balanced?


The majority of the DA codex is already balanced. All the tanks etc don't change and I doubt that basic marines go up in price either. All GW has to do is fit some new wargear and army wide special rules in then play test it a bit to make sure nothing is too broken. With the Ork and Dark Eldar codex I feel that GW might go back to the basics and retool them from the ground up.

Kahadras

Hellebore
19-12-2006, 04:45
They could but would lose a lot of what made them interesting as an army. Background, special rules, special units etc would have to be dropped to prevent the SM codex from ending up bigger then the BGB. No one wants to see their army end up as an apendix or a page worth of rules.

Kahadras

You're looking at it from the wrong end of the codex. They only lose what made them interesting precisely BECAUSE they were released as a codex. In order to make them a different and unique army with their own codex they had to INVENT whole new ideas and rules.

The point is, had they not had their own seperate codex that required the creation of new rules etc, they could quite easily be represented in the marine codex.

It's one of the reasons people didn't like the removal of the Craftworld army book - no one minds the ADDITION of things, but REMOVING things always pisses people off.

If they removed the DA codex completely and just said use these specific traits from the marine codex, people would be spitting chips.

Be swift as the wind perfectly represents the Ravenwing.

But they already created a background that REQUIRED new rules etc to sell the codex, so doing that would be like removing the Court of the young king or seer councils from the eldar codex...

Hellebore

Zedric
19-12-2006, 06:45
They could but would lose a lot of what made them interesting as an army. Background, special rules, special units etc would have to be dropped to prevent the SM codex from ending up bigger then the BGB. No one wants to see their army end up as an apendix or a page worth of rules.
I think that's the second point. If there's enough difference between Dark Angels and Blood Angels to warrant entirely separate books, why not Bad Moons and Death Skullz? Why not Leviathan and Kraken? Why not the Chaos Legions? **

If you can call Blood Angels and Dark Angels two different armies, then the same can easily be said for any of the above. After all, the Chaos Legions are far more divergent from one another than any pair of loyalist Chapters, and yet here they are, reduced to an appendix (admittedly more than a page).

It should be all or none, not all for some and none for the rest. ;)

** Those are rhetorical questions, we all know the answer is a matter of popularity and profit margin - not that I give that any sort of negative connotation: it's only when it's defended with anything but the truth that I get up in arms.

BrainFireBob
19-12-2006, 06:51
I think that's the second point. If there's enough difference between Dark Angels and Blood Angels to warrant entirely separate books, why not Bad Moons and Death Skullz? Why not Leviathan and Kraken? Why not the Chaos Legions? **

If you can call Blood Angels and Dark Angels two different armies, then the same can easily be said for any of the above. After all, the Chaos Legions are far more divergent from one another than any pair of loyalist Chapters, and yet here they are, reduced to an appendix (admittedly more than a page).

It should be all or none, not all for some and none for the rest. ;)

** Those are rhetorical questions, we all know the answer is a matter of popularity and profit margin - not that I give that any sort of negative connotation: it's only when it's defended with anything but the truth that I get up in arms.

Because there's no established point to work from yet.

Until and unless GW decrees they will never do any other variant lists, GW turning existing Marine variant lists into their own codices will not strike me as favoritism, but will instead as "testing the waters"- and if they later say "No, we tried that and it didn't work" I'm going to be furious at all the negativity directed at Games Workshop now that killed the creation of variant lists- something most easily done and tested with Marines!

Prince Facestab
19-12-2006, 07:04
Because there's no established point to work from yet.

Until and unless GW decrees they will never do any other variant lists, GW turning existing Marine variant lists into their own codices will not strike me as favoritism, but will instead as "testing the waters"- and if they later say "No, we tried that and it didn't work" I'm going to be furious at all the negativity directed at Games Workshop now that killed the creation of variant lists- something most easily done and tested with Marines!

Huh. Even though I'm pretty sure that's not the way it works, it might be, and it's still a pretty good point.

If another army becomes popular, maybe they too will get variant lists. There are rumors about this happening for Harlequins.

Besides, I can't be that unhappy. I play Eldar, who just got cool new models and a cool new codex. My other army is IG, who are also pretty solid.

While variant lists from other armies might be interesting, I certainly don't begrudge marines for having them. Just so long as they do get orks and dark eldar done... poor beggars...

Getz
19-12-2006, 10:02
Because there's no established point to work from yet.

Until and unless GW decrees they will never do any other variant lists, GW turning existing Marine variant lists into their own codices will not strike me as favoritism, but will instead as "testing the waters"- and if they later say "No, we tried that and it didn't work" I'm going to be furious at all the negativity directed at Games Workshop now that killed the creation of variant lists- something most easily done and tested with Marines!

But, as best as I can tell, many of the varient sub-lists they have published have all been wildly popular... Craftworld Eldar, Ork Speed Freeks, LatD, Ulthwe Strike force - all big hits. Ork Klans are popular with the Die hards and even Steel Legion were well liked, if not collected much because of the huge expence of a fully mechanised all metal IG army...

It's even go to the point where the undivided Legions are more popular than the marked Chaos Legions...

I would have though that the course of 3rd ed proved Mini Dexes and sub lists to be a huge success.

So what are GW doing? Disallowing all the old sub varients and producing - by the looks of things at least - Codexes with customisation options built into them.

Except for Marines, who get a trait system and mini-dexes for the special chapters...

ncc_drkstar
19-12-2006, 10:13
It doesn't make ANY sense for GW to "favour" space marines aside from either huge popularity or due to market conjectures.

So, if the Craftworld and such were that popular, then why would GW cut them? I'm willing to acknowledge that there could be other reasons we're missing here, but no matter what you think of GW popularity+money=good (for everyone). So either there WASN'T support for Craftworld and such books or they have grander intentions. But cutitng popular products cuts into the profit margin, which any company avoids.

Anathema
19-12-2006, 10:14
No one wants to see their army end up as an apendix or a page worth of rules.


Funny, thats what just happened with Eldar. Why can it not happen with marines? Or that they at least wait until after all the other Xenos codexes are re-done. DA I can wait for (its not as if I don't see any other marine armies about is it?), actually seeing some Ork or DE armies about would be nice.

Starscream1138
19-12-2006, 10:22
WHFB has a much better race representation and each army receives eqvialent attention IMO.


Except Chaos Dwarfs.

I've played with and against Space Marines and don't have a problem. Sure they're super hard and have some of the best weapons in the game, but aren't they supposed to at least from a background point of view.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
19-12-2006, 10:55
If you can call Blood Angels and Dark Angels two different armies, then the same can easily be said for any of the above. After all, the Chaos Legions are far more divergent from one another than any pair of loyalist Chapters, and yet here they are, reduced to an appendix (admittedly more than a page)[/SIZE][/COLOR]

Actually i like the way they do in Chaos Codex, maybe there was lack of some equipment/like jump pack in Night Lords/ and i want again such appendix in next chaos book /maybe somehow longer/.

Yes i'm Chaos Player.

And about marines - White Scars, Black Templars and Space Marines are far different form codex marines after all. they can't exist under one codex/poor white scars - i'd never like them :) /

Kahadras
19-12-2006, 12:25
Funny, thats what just happened with Eldar

Exactly and look at the amount of moaning that went on when that happened. GW would get exactly the same responce if they did that to the BA, DA, SW etc.

IMHO I think the new DA codex is more of a test bed for new ideas that have come out of 4th ed Space marines. The variable squad size has been removed in favour of a more rigid system therefore removing the problem of the 6 man laz/plas squads.

Kahadras

Anathema
19-12-2006, 13:10
Exactly and look at the amount of moaning that went on when that happened. GW would get exactly the same responce if they did that to the BA, DA, SW etc.


Yes but they still did it and people have since stopped complaining once they realised what a balanced adaptable codex can do. However the fact that they did it for Eldar but wouldn't dream of doing it for marines (despite the very high level of flexibility built in with the traits that is arguably as good if not better than the Craftworld codex lists in terms of flexibility) and carry on developing variant lists speaks volumes. If the entire design studio/games dev teams were put onto Orks and DE without any marine based distractions it would surely speed up those much neglected codexes renewal? Instead I hardly ever see any DE or Ork lists around, but bucketloads of marines of all flavours (except Templars for some reason). Its not good for the game at all.

Oh and the reason that marines don't win everything is because everyone tools against them. Why is that? Because they're everywhere and you can bet that at least half of your games will be vs. marines of some type. If there were a good spread of races represented on everyday gaming tables, marines would do so much better as no-one could afford to tool up for them. Less marine players around would actually be good for the remaining marine players and they may start to win more games.

azimaith
19-12-2006, 14:45
Why do players hate marines?
1: If Space Marines are so cliche, what about Eldar and Dark Eldar? Elves have been around a helluva lot longer then genetically engineered superhumans. Orks are pretty cliche too.

Yes, they're all cliche, but not to the sci-fi genre. Elves/Orkz in space are not cliche. Elves and Orcs in fantasy is. And with orcs they've managed to make them so different and characterful its not even such an issue.



2: This goes back to an old argument, if space marines get all the wicked equipment then why don't they always win?

Nice options doesn't mean good. It means awesome versatility in making the army you want. And whose at the top of nearly all GTs. It ain't nids, its Marines.



Just becaues Tyranid drop pods haven't been added for whatever reason doesn't siginify a gross imbalance because if it did... Marines would always win.
Tyranid did have drop pods in the form of Mycetic spores in the old edition. Why not this time, why no stangleweb/spikegaunts? Because they went straight from Tyranids to *black templars* and made a very no-frills codex for bugs.



3: This point has already been made as well, but they don't have realy weakness because they're a jack of all trades force. Thats the idea. They provide a tactical option for those who want that level of inherent versatility.

Being a jack of all trades is *supposed* to be followed by "but a master of none". But its not for marines.



4: I would imagine part of it is the ease of producing a new Marine codex. I mean, as they're really supplements its bloody easy.

Then why didn't they just throw 2-3 pages in the back of the marine codex that contain rules for blood angels/dark angels/whatever and not make an entire damn codex for them slowing down everyone elses stuff. I most of these codex's alot of it involves the same crap being reprinted again and again.



And yes, part of it does accord with the belief in higher sales. But to retool the Dark Angels codex isn't nearly the same investment as retooling the whole Ork line.

The Orkz don't need a whole retuned line. They just need a few tweaks, maybe a new unit or two, and to be brought up to date. They could have just retooled the Dark angels codex in Codex:Space Marines.



5: Who portrays them as good guys if not the fluff? The people you play against? I don't see how that could become a large problem unless either the fluff is heavily imbued into the scenario, or they keep saying things like "my lion-hearted space marine smote your dreaded Lictor. Begone."

The fluff on space marines describes them as cold, psychopaths who are maniacally devoted to their god-emperor and willing. Their minds are conditioned and warped to be fighting machines knowing only their faith and no compromise. Angels of Death aren't known for having comforting pinions.



6: Taken in part with Rebuttal #5, they're so common because they sell and thus receive alot of support. Part of the reason that they sell, is because there are so many bloody factions. I'm not sure if it was the chicken or the egg, but I am pretty certain that if there were just Ultramarines, you wouldn't see as strong sales because they wouldn't be nearly as interesting.

They have so many factions because they are GW's favored child, which has incited jealousy, (which is not unjust) to them and the people who proliferate them, that they recieve so much support while entire armies languish with out of date rules that haven't been updated for years while codex: "Were a lighter shade of red" space marines get a whole new codex and model line because it includes one special rule and two units other space marines don't have.

Nebëhr Gudahtt
19-12-2006, 15:14
Fluff says: There is less than one Space Marine for every world in the Imperium. Whereas Guardsmen are available in their billions.

Reality says: There is less than one Guardsman for every Space Marine army being played.

Kahadras
19-12-2006, 15:23
Oh and the reason that marines don't win everything is because everyone tools against them.

No, people tool against MEq. As far as I have seen far more people play Chaos than Marines at my local club and GW.

Kahadras

Anathema
19-12-2006, 15:30
No people tool against MEq.

*Splutters* I refer you to pretty much every major tournament, everywhere. When writing lists, people have to assume that at least half and likely more of the armies they face will be MEQ. At the UK GT heats and finals last year, I faced 12 MEQ's out of 12 games. Ever wonder why marines pack tons of plasma, assault cannons and lascannons? Because they face other marines all the time. You don't see many flamers and whirlwinds a lot do you?

stompzilla
19-12-2006, 15:41
Hahahahaha!!!!! So what are chaos if not a Marine EQuivelant?

bertcom1
19-12-2006, 15:43
No people tool against MEq. As far as I have seen far more people play Chaos than Marines at my local club and GW.


*Splutters* I refer you to pretty much every major tournament, everywhere. When writing lists, people have to assume that at least half and likely more of the armies they face will be MEQ.

Kahadras probably means that people don't tool specifically against Imperial Marines, instead tooling for going against Chaos Marines as well, because they are quite similar, hence the MarineEQuivalent.

Imperial marines are all MEQ, but not all MEQ are Imperial marines.

People set up their forces to deal with MEQ because Imperial marines and Chaos marines are common opponents, and what works for one will usually work just as well as for the other.

This thread seems to be mostly about Imperial marines, not MEQs in general.

You said you faced 12 of 12 MEQ opponents. Were they all Imperial Marines?

Souleater
19-12-2006, 15:45
His point is that people don't tool to take on SM, they tool to take on MEQ as a whole (SM, CSM, Necron).

He just left out the comma after 'No', s'all.

Master Jeridian
19-12-2006, 15:46
I'm amazed that Chaos (with IW's friends) makes people all warm and fuzzy, whilst SM's draw bile. IMO Chaos is far more easy to beard up.

But that aside, MEq should encompass Chaos, SM's, Necrons (I guess).

It's very difficult to 'tool' against Imperial SM's without 'tooling' against Chaos- on the surface they're so similar in the area that counts to your opponent, i.e. Toughness and Save.

Forbiddenknowledge
19-12-2006, 15:47
Meh, I find myself subconciously always thinking what will do best against marines, as if I don't fight them, I'll consider myself lucky.

A guy at my club wanted to try out a new marine army he had planned, and asked me not to tool up to fight marines. All I could reply was "My stock army is already designed to counter marines, as its all I ever fight."

Kahadras
19-12-2006, 16:46
Kahadras probably means that people don't tool specifically against Imperial Marines, instead tooling for going against Chaos Marines as well, because they are quite similar, hence the MarineEQuivalent.

Imperial marines are all MEQ, but not all MEQ are Imperial marines.

Yup. I missed the comma out. :p Fixed. My point is the fact that MEq doesn't automaticaly equal Space marines. Armies like Witch hunters, Chaos and Necrons also are MEq.

Kahadras

Zerosoul
19-12-2006, 16:59
Yes, they're all cliche, but not to the sci-fi genre. Elves/Orkz in space are not cliche. Elves and Orcs in fantasy is. And with orcs they've managed to make them so different and characterful its not even such an issue.

They're exactly the same as fantasy orks, just with "it's PSYCHIC!" instead of "it's MAGIC!".

Besides, there ain't nothin' new under the sun. Every single 40K codex borrows ideas from other places. While I do like 40k's fluff, it's a space opera pastiche of ideas that have been borrowed from other places. "Elves.../Orks...In...Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaace" isn't exactly a new idea, as I'm sure many consumers of 80's schlock sci-fi novels will be able to tell you.



Nice options doesn't mean good. It means awesome versatility in making the army you want. And whose at the top of nearly all GTs. It ain't nids, its Marines.

Versatility is a metagame advantage and is absolutely irrelevant when minis hit the table. What does it matter if, theoretically, I could run any army I want with Marines? It doesn't change the fact that a) it's not economically feasible to actually take advantage of the bewildering multitude of options in the Marine codex and b) once the game starts I have only the army list I brought. If you run in an area where army lists change every week and there's a lot of proxying, sure, it can be a problem that Marines can tool up to take on whatever. This isn't a problem for lots of people.

As to your second point, I'm sure you can see how silly it is. Given the overwhelming number of Marine armies who enter in GTs, the odds are in their favors. In an alternate reality where people play more 'nid armies than Marines, you'd have the same complaints about 'nid armies winning.


Tyranid did have drop pods in the form of Mycetic spores in the old edition. Why not this time, why no stangleweb/spikegaunts? Because they went straight from Tyranids to *black templars* and made a very no-frills codex for bugs.

An army as powerful in an assault as Tyranids would be badly overpowered if they had drop pods. Last edition, as I'm sure you'll recall, most of the complaining about 'nid armies was, in fact, about Mycetic Spore armies.


Being a jack of all trades is *supposed* to be followed by "but a master of none". But its not for marines.

Bull. What are Marines best at? Shooting? Psh. Shooty Eldar blow them out of the water. Assault? Try an assaulty Marine army versus an assaulty Tyranid army. Vehicles? Eldar again, who have the best tanks in the game. Seriously. What area are Marines "masters" of? I would truly love to hear this. I don't even play Marines and I can see how wrong this is.


Then why didn't they just throw 2-3 pages in the back of the marine codex that contain rules for blood angels/dark angels/whatever and not make an entire damn codex for them slowing down everyone elses stuff. I most of these codex's alot of it involves the same crap being reprinted again and again.

You have literally no way of knowing what's in the new codices. The BT one was mostly a cut and paste job, sure, but with enough new fluff to justify it - and besides, they're trying to make each Marine codex stand alone. A BT player shouldn't have to refer to the Marine codex to know what a Dreadnought or Terminator is. That's the entire point. Come on. They do the Marine codexes in between big xeno releases because all they have to do is sculpt a couple special characters, do a sprue of gubbins, and then sell all the Marine stuff again. Do you honestly think that, if Dark Angels wasn't being released in February, that you'd have the Ork codex in your hands sooner? That's a unique worldview.


The Orkz don't need a whole retuned line. They just need a few tweaks, maybe a new unit or two, and to be brought up to date. They could have just retooled the Dark angels codex in Codex:Space Marines.

So, uh, have you read the "what Ork players want" threads that were popping up like wildfire for a while? Ork players want their codex completely redone. Of COURSE they need a new line - everything needs to go from the codex to the models. Practically everything needs a brand new sculpt - they still have Gorkamorka models, for goodness' sake, and a good half the entries in the codex don't have their own model. The boyz are fine - pretty good, in fact - but almost everything else needs to be redone. They need a rewrite from the ground up and more or less a complete overhaul on the models. It's incredibly daft to think that Orks aren't going to need more work than, say, Eldar(who already had some really good models) or Dark Angels(which needs a sprue and a couple special characters).


They have so many factions because they are GW's favored child, which has incited jealousy, (which is not unjust) to them and the people who proliferate them, that they recieve so much support while entire armies languish with out of date rules that haven't been updated for years while codex: "Were a lighter shade of red" space marines get a whole new codex and model line because it includes one special rule and two units other space marines don't have.

Dark Angels aren't getting a new model line. They're getting some new characters, maybe a couple units like the Black Templars, and an upgrade sprue. In fact, none of the Marine dexes get their own lines - they're all based off what we have now.

And as people have pointed out - Marine factions have existed longer than craftworlds, which were, as far as I know, nothing more than paint schemes until the Craftworld codex.

Cruentus
19-12-2006, 17:22
Versatility is a metagame advantage and is absolutely irrelevant when minis hit the table. What does it matter if, theoretically, I could run any army I want with Marines? It doesn't change the fact that a) it's not economically feasible to actually take advantage of the bewildering multitude of options in the Marine codex and b) once the game starts I have only the army list I brought. If you run in an area where army lists change every week and there's a lot of proxying, sure, it can be a problem that Marines can tool up to take on whatever. This isn't a problem for lots of people.

Bull. What are Marines best at? Shooting? Psh. Shooty Eldar blow them out of the water. Assault? Try an assaulty Marine army versus an assaulty Tyranid army. Vehicles? Eldar again, who have the best tanks in the game. Seriously. What area are Marines "masters" of? I would truly love to hear this. I don't even play Marines and I can see how wrong this is.

Versatility is nothing more than an approximation to be able to 'take on all comers', being equally capable of dealing with MEQ and horde armies. Unfortunately, things that are good against one tend to be good against both (i.e. Assault Cannon, Plasma Guns, and until recently, Starcannons - since nerfed due to the whining of marine players).

Marines are best at shooting - see 6 man Laz/Plaz. 15pts for a marine lascannon at BS4, 25 points for a Guardian (BS3) with bright lance. And, thank you very much, but my Flesh Tearers (Blood Angels) regularly take apart my friend's Nids (and he is a top 10 GT finisher and no push over). Marines are better overall than any of the current codicies at the moment - if they adopt the DA structure, it will be a long way to bringing them 'in line'. Notice how fewer Black Templar players there are now than when Armageddon came out. They brought Templars in line with the other 4th ed codexes, its still the basic Marine dex that is the problem.

And I play Marines, Chaos, Dark Eldar, and Stormtrooper DaemonHunters. I rarely play Marines and Chaos any more, as they're ridiculously easy to win with.

spispopd
19-12-2006, 17:28
Oh and the reason that marines don't win everything is because everyone tools against them. Why is that? Because they're everywhere and you can bet that at least half of your games will be vs. marines of some type. If there were a good spread of races represented on everyday gaming tables, marines would do so much better as no-one could afford to tool up for them. Less marine players around would actually be good for the remaining marine players and they may start to win more games.

That's exactly what I'm thinking. I agree with the rest of your post as well, but I only quoted this part because that's what I'm going to comment.

I do think that Marines (and Chaos Marines - when reading the rest of my message you can always assume that when I'm talking about Marines, it includes Chaos as well as loyalist) are slightly overpowered. The reason they don't always win at tournaments is the fact that everybody tools against them. If there were fewer Marines players in tournaments, then less people would tool against them and the remaining Marine players would probably dominate the tournament completely. To me, the fact that Marine players do reasonably well at tournaments despite the fact that everyone else is tooling against them proves that Marines are overpowered.

If a Guard army that is designed to kill Marines (lots of plasma, AP3 pie plates etc) has a 50% chance to win against a Marine list designed to kill Marines, then doesn't that mean that a Marine list tooled against GEQs has an overwhelming advantage against IG, even if the IG player tools up against Marines? On the other hand, this also means that a Guard list that is tooled against GEQs (lots of weapons with poor AP but good rate of fire and/or templates) will really suffer against Marines - even if the Marine player hasn't tooled up against GEQs. The most hopeless situation is Guard that is tooled against GEQs vs Marines tooled against GEQs. In this case the Guard have almost a 0% chance of winning unless the IG player is much more skilled than the Marine player, or exceptionally lucky.

I think that in a balanced game, an anti-MEQ IG army should have a big advantage (win almost every time) against an anti-MEQ Marine army. Anti-MEQ IG vs anti-GEQ Marine games and anti-GEQ IG vs anti-MEQ Marine games should be fairly balanced, as in these situations both or neither player have tooled up against the other. An anti-GEQ Marine army should, of course, have an advantage over an anti-GEQ IG army. In the current rules only the latest statement applies, while the previous ones don't.

The problem is, of course, tournaments. GW often seems to write the rules and assign point costs with tournament play in mind. Anti-MEQ weapons are very useful in tournaments, because so many players play MEQs. That's why GW charges premium points for AP3 (or better) weapons, while weapons with AP4 or worse are often ridiculously cheap (5 points for a heavy bolter in a Tactical squad!).

Take the Eldar codex, for example. A scatter laser is statistically better against models with 5+ saves or worse than a starcannon. Against models with 4+ saves they are equal if the target is in open, but if there is any cover at all, the scatter laser is better again. Against models with 3+ saves the starcannon is better than a scatter laser in the open. In a cover with 5+ saves they are equal against 3+ saves, while in 4+ cover or better the scatter laser is better yet again. The only targets against whom the starcannon is clearly better is models with 2+ saves, unless they're in a cover with 3+ saves, in which case the two weapons are equal. Against vehicles the scatter laser is much better than a starcannon, as it has the same range and strength but the laser has twice as many shots.

If you had never played 40K before and heard the above analysis about those two weapons, which weapon, in your opinion, should cost more points? I guess most people would answer scatter laser, because it is the better choice against most target types/situations. However, in the Eldar codex the scatter laser is 15 points and the starcannon is 25 -almost twice as expensive. Just because the starcannon is better against MEQ infantry in the open than a scatter laser, it costs almost twice as much as the scatter laser, despite the fact that the scatter laser is better against pretty much everything else.

The same phenomenon can be seen in other codices as well. In the new Tau codex almost all battlesuit weapon costs (the anti-GEQ/anti-4+/anti-light vehicle weapons) went down, but the cost of plasma went up. Do you really think that would have happened if the majority of 40K players were IG or Dark Eldar instead of MEQs? The Missile Pod, for example, is better at taking out vehicles, has much better range, and is just as good or better (depending on range and toughness of the target) against models with 4+ saves or worse. Again, one who has not played 40K might think that the missile pod is clearly better than a plasma rifle. However, the plasma rifle is better against MEQ infantry than a missile pod (at least under certain conditions), and because of that the plasma rifle is more expensive. If there was an equal distribution of all armies in a tournament, nobody would take a plasma gun instead of a missile pod. However, because of the high number of Marine players involved, plasma fifles still get taken, despite the fact that their point cost is insanely high.

In one off games, if you know roughly what you'll opponent will be fielding, you can gain an advantage by tooling against your opponent. For example, if a Marine player knows that he'll be facing a Tau army with lots of infantry in it, it would make sense to take some heavy bolters. Against other Marines, heavy bolters are not as useful as some other options (such as the famous las-plas squads). In tournaments, you don't know what you'll be facing. However, because of the large amount of MEQ players around, it makes sense to tool up against them. GW assumes that players will do that, and assigns the point costs of weapons according to that.

In a game where one army type is very dominant (such as MEQs in 40k), it is not possible to make the game balanced in individual games (by that I mean games where you'll know roughly what your opponent will be using) and tournaments at the same time. If you make all armies equally powerful in individual games, then the most popular army will suffer at tournaments against other armies, because the other armies are tooled up against the popular army, while the popular army has also tooled against the popular army and therefore not the opposing army. On the other hand, if you make all armies equally powerful in tournaments (for example, by making weapons that are designed to kill the most popular army ridiculously expensive, which is the case in 40k currenlty IMO), then the most popular army will be overpowered in one-off games. This is because the popular army can then also tool up against its opponent, which gives it an advantage over thier opponent (even if the opponent has also tooled up agains the popular army), because the point costs are assigned and the game balanced assuming that the popular army has not tooled up against the unpopular, and the unpopular army has tooled up against the popular army.

The only way we could have a truly balanced game (both in tournaments and individual games) is if all armies were equally popular. In this case, the most sensible weapon configuration to take into a tournament would be a balanced mix of everything. There would be no reason to tool up against anybody, because the chance you'd fight against GEQs would be roughly the same as the chance to fight against MEQs. In individual games, you could also both use balanced lists and have an equal chance of winning (modified by player skill and other factors, such as scenario, for example). Alternatively, you could tool up against the other player, but he could do the same against you, and the game would still be reasonably balanced (Of course, it couldn't be perfectly balanced, because there are too many different scenarios to consider).

As long as we have a game where 70% or more of the players are MEQs, the designers have to choose between having the game balanced in one-off games or having it balanced in tournaments. Alternatively, they could, of course, choose to not care about balance at all. :rolleyes: It seems to me that they have chosen to try to make the game balanced at tournaments, which means that they have to make Marines overpowered in one-off games.

Personally, I'd prefer to use the other alternative. That would mean balancing the game so that Marines were balanced against other armies in one-off games. This means that a "balanced" Marine list, which includes a little bit of everything, including anti-MEQ weapons and anti-GEQ weapons, should be equally matched against a balanced IG (or other non-MEQ) list. On the other hand, they could also both tool up against each other and the game would remain reasonably balanced. If player 1 has tooled up against player 2 but player 2 has not tooled up against player 1, then player 1 should have an advantage in the game. That wouldn't mean that he'll win automatically, but player 2 would have to compensate with better tactics or better luck to win.

By making the armies balanced like that, Marines would at first suffer at tournaments (assuming that the distribution of armies remains as it is), and likely lose most of their games against non-MEQs. But that's the way it should be, IMO. If you take an army that everybody else is prepared to fight against, then you should be at a disadvantage. It's just like playing rock, paper and scissors and picking rock every time (okay, maybe not exactly, but you probably get the point). If the situation was like that, then it would encourage people to take more non-MEQ armies into tournaments. That, in my opinion, would be a positive thing, as it would increase variety and generally make playing more interesting. If enough people used non-Marine armies, then ultimately the army distribution would become so balanced that people would no longer need to tool up against MEQ armies, and after that MEQs would start winning games again (but still not be overpowering).

I know that I've made many simplifications and assumpions in my analysis. In real life, everything is much more complicated. However, I still think that the problem exists, and it's not easy to fix. I have only looked at the issue from the viewpoint of game balance. I have (at least tried to) shown that it is not possible to have a completely balanced game in both tournaments and indicidual games at the same time, if the majority of players play the same type of army. There are, of course, many other reasons why it would be nicer to have a more balanced mix of armies than what we currently have, but I have not detailed those in my message - many others have already done that in this thread.

Do I hate Marines? No, I don't really hate them as such. I do find their concept and fluff a little bit boring, but I don't have any problems with having them in the game. What I do hate, however, is GW's marketing policy and the fact that there are too many MEQ armies around. I don't hate MEQ players either - in fact, I play Chaos myself, in addition to Eldar, who are my main army. But I do hate the current situation, where there are too many MEQ armies and they get too much support while the other armies are neglected.

To those of you who didn't bother to read through my entire post, here is a summary:
-I think that Marines and Chaos are slightly overpowered against other armies in one-off games.
-Despite that, MEQs don't dominate tournaments, because other armies tool against them, while MEQs don't tool against those other armies.
-I believe that it is impossible to make the game balanced both in one-off games and tournaments at the same time as long as most tournament players play the same type of army.
-In my opinion, it would be nicer if GW tried to balance units and points assuming that either both or none of the armies have tooled up against the other, rather than trying to make the game balanced at tournament level.
-Ultimately, doing this might (or might not) also make the game balanced at tournament level.

Thanks for reading, I think that's all I have to say for now. :)

Zerosoul
19-12-2006, 17:54
Versatility is nothing more than an approximation to be able to 'take on all comers', being equally capable of dealing with MEQ and horde armies. Unfortunately, things that are good against one tend to be good against both (i.e. Assault Cannon, Plasma Guns, and until recently, Starcannons - since nerfed due to the whining of marine players).

Marines are best at shooting - see 6 man Laz/Plaz. 15pts for a marine lascannon at BS4, 25 points for a Guardian (BS3) with bright lance. And, thank you very much, but my Flesh Tearers (Blood Angels) regularly take apart my friend's Nids (and he is a top 10 GT finisher and no push over). Marines are better overall than any of the current codicies at the moment - if they adopt the DA structure, it will be a long way to bringing them 'in line'. Notice how fewer Black Templar players there are now than when Armageddon came out. They brought Templars in line with the other 4th ed codexes, its still the basic Marine dex that is the problem.

And I play Marines, Chaos, Dark Eldar, and Stormtrooper DaemonHunters. I rarely play Marines and Chaos any more, as they're ridiculously easy to win with.

I know what versatility is. Even as such, it's a metagame advantage, which is what people who complain about marines neglect to mention. Yes, marines can be tooled up to be effective against any army(not that this is particularly a special trait, since any army can, really). Any given Marine list can be made extremely effective. But in order to make a list maximally effective against hordes, you necessarily have to forgo some MEq killing power.

Marines are simply not best at shooting. Sorry. Maybe in the old Eldar codex - maybe - you might have had a point(I don't think so, but that's just me). Are they GOOD at it? Sure, of course. But in these days of 18" Avenger catapults, Bladestorm, T6 Wraithguard, Fire Prisms worth taking, cheap and abundant scatter lasers, and Doom, you cannot make a serious argument that Marines are BETTER shooters than Eldar.

The fact that your Flesh Tearers can take apart nids is great but not very meaningful. Blood Angels are not regular codex Marines. They play differently. Even so, I can't imagine that you regularly whomp 'nids with them in assaults. Sure, you have Death Company, but unless your friend is the worst roller in the entire world, Genestealers make mincemeat out of them.

azimaith
19-12-2006, 18:04
They're exactly the same as fantasy orks, just with "it's PSYCHIC!" instead of "it's MAGIC!".

Yes and fantasy orcs are very characterful compared to the standard "Tolkien" orc.



Besides, there ain't nothin' new under the sun. Every single 40K codex borrows ideas from other places. While I do like 40k's fluff, it's a space opera pastiche of ideas that have been borrowed from other places. "Elves.../Orks...In...Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaace" isn't exactly a new idea, as I'm sure many consumers of 80's schlock sci-fi novels will be able to tell you.

Its was new to wargames which is the group i'm talking about.



Versatility is a metagame advantage and is absolutely irrelevant when minis hit the table.

Its not irrelevant when the miniatures hit the table. It means when miniatures hit the table their army list will be better suited to dealing with whatever list they happen to be fighting because they can tool against it. Fighting a list with MCs? Dump some more lascannons into tactical squads. Fighting a list with lots of 4+ saves? Throw in some heavy bolters onto the same tactical squads that would have been using Lascannons.



What does it matter if, theoretically, I could run any army I want with Marines?

It gives you massive tactical flexibility in your army. If your fighting against an godzilla list you could give a unit that would normally carry a heavy bolter a lascannon instead. Try that with necrons, you can't, you'd have to go out and buy a pricey heavy support option rather than just slapping on a lascannon to a squad. They can tool out to handle practically anything with any squad.



It doesn't change the fact that a) it's not economically feasible to actually take advantage of the bewildering multitude of options in the Marine codex

You don't need to take advantage of them all at once, you just need whats advantageous to the opposing list. And that can go onto practically any squad you want it in.



and b) once the game starts I have only the army list I brought. If you run in an area where army lists change every week and there's a lot of proxying, sure, it can be a problem that Marines can tool up to take on whatever. This isn't a problem for lots of people.

They just change their army list on the spot. "Oh nids? Let me change these melta guns squads to heavy bolter squads and these plasmaguns to flamers."



As to your second point, I'm sure you can see how silly it is. Given the overwhelming number of Marine armies who enter in GTs, the odds are in their favors. In an alternate reality where people play more 'nid armies than Marines, you'd have the same complaints about 'nid armies winning.

Not true, the reason why there is an overwhelming number of Marine armies is because they *win* tournaments. You've got it reveresed.



An army as powerful in an assault as Tyranids would be badly overpowered if they had drop pods. Last edition, as I'm sure you'll recall, most of the complaining about 'nid armies was, in fact, about Mycetic Spore armies.

Have you ever seen a marine army tooled out to assault drop from drop pods? Last edition the whining about tyranids was about biovores with their flamer template acid mines and ordnance blast template weapons, not about seeding swarm, especially since only "Ferocious" units could assault out of Mycetic spores and they weren't drop pods, they were just deep strikes.



Bull. What are Marines best at? Shooting? Psh. Shooty Eldar blow them out of the water.

Hardly true. A tooled up starcannon army most certainly can destroy a marine army, but you don't shoot back at shooty armies. This is where versatility comes into play and you go out and beat their eldar faces in with assault units and drop pod BOO!



Assault? Try an assaulty Marine army versus an assaulty Tyranid army.

Versatility, they just decide don't assault and go shooting. No problem. They don't need to out assault them.

They can be best at both because they can switch roles at the drop of a hat to use the optimal force. What happens if tyranids want to outshoot a Chaos army? Oh too bad, you can't, you can grab tons of devourers but you will never be as good as marines will (and you shouldn't), but marines who want to assault a tau army? No problem, they can do it just as well as tyranids.



Vehicles? Eldar again, who have the best tanks in the game. Seriously. What area are Marines "masters" of? I would truly love to hear this. I don't even play Marines and I can see how wrong this is.

I didn't compare vehicles because they are the odd man out for armies. Some armies don't even have them so they don't fit, other armies only have 1. Besides vehicles aren't an army archetype.



You have literally no way of knowing what's in the new codices. The BT one was mostly a cut and paste job, sure, but with enough new fluff to justify it

And justify an ork codex delay? Or even an eldar codex delay? My God they could have just plopped a page on a PDF on the website and been fine.



- and besides, they're trying to make each Marine codex stand alone. A BT player shouldn't have to refer to the Marine codex to know what a Dreadnought or Terminator is.

Why shouldn't they? They're bloody space marines aren't they? Marine codex's don't need to be stand alone. Just put a page or 2 in the back of C:SM and give the 2-3 units you added and be done with it rather than giving it a full development cycle like it was the *only codex the race had at all*.



That's the entire point. Come on. They do the Marine codexes in between big xeno releases because all they have to do is sculpt a couple special characters, do a sprue of gubbins, and then sell all the Marine stuff again.

Why do a marine codex between them when you could just devote that time to making better, faster xenos codex's. The marines already got their codex, why do they need 6 more? They can release new sculpts whenever the hell they want, they don't need to do it coinciding with a new release, its not like its a *new race codex*. Its just a rehash of an old one with a couple new things.



Do you honestly think that, if Dark Angels wasn't being released in February, that you'd have the Ork codex in your hands sooner? That's a unique worldview.

Is it really unique. Lets see:
X number of people working on Dark Angels codex, Y working on orks.
If there were no DA's then XY people working on ork codex. So yes, yes it would. What do you think the people working on the dark angels codex would be doing? Taking a quarter off? They'd be working on something else.



So, uh, have you read the "what Ork players want" threads that were popping up like wildfire for a while? Ork players want their codex completely redone.

What i've read from alot of ork players, and more importantly to me, the people I game with in our public gaming group, is that the ork codex needs some tweaks and to be brought up to speed with a couple new things, not a completely redone ork codex.



Of COURSE they need a new line - everything needs to go from the codex to the models. Practically everything needs a brand new sculpt - they still have Gorkamorka models, for goodness' sake, and a good half the entries in the codex don't have their own model. The boyz are fine - pretty good, in fact - but almost everything else needs to be redone.

Burna Boyz are fine, in fact most can be played by plain "Ork Boyz". Tank Busta models are fine looking as well. Rokkit boyz look fine, so do warbosses though a new warboss model would be nice, bigmeks already been released, Shoota boyz same as ork boyz, Flash gitz are converted shoota boyz, same with skar boyz and even eavy boyz. They don't necessarily need their own models, they don't come in huge squads other than flash gitz. Metal nobz are fine looking but would be better in a plastic kit. The only things that are really bad are the vehicle driver sculpts, gretchin, killa kanz, and gun batteries.



They need a rewrite from the ground up and more or less a complete overhaul on the models. It's incredibly daft to think that Orks aren't going to need more work than, say, Eldar(who already had some really good models) or Dark Angels(which needs a sprue and a couple special characters).

They don't need a rewrite from the ground up. They need some points tweaks, some redundant units removed or changed, and some rules brought up to fourth edition. The only things that need core changes are stikk bommas and lootas. Everything else will be fine with minor tweaks with point values, maybe some extras here and there for more fun.



Dark Angels aren't getting a new model line. They're getting some new characters, maybe a couple units like the Black Templars, and an upgrade sprue. In fact, none of the Marine dexes get their own lines - they're all based off what we have now.

Then why didn't they just slap the couple new units into the back of codex space marines and release the upgrade sprue when it was done. They instead get their own production quarter.



And as people have pointed out - Marine factions have existed longer than craftworlds, which were, as far as I know, nothing more than paint schemes until the Craftworld codex.
So what? That makes it right for GW to push back xenos codex's that are so old that nearly no one plays them anymore (I'm looking at you dark eldar) to put out more marine codex's that just consist of a reprint of codex space marines +1-2 new units.

Then again, if players are willing to spend 20 dollars on a paper back book thats a carbon copy of something most of them already have just to get 2-3 new units then thats their money. GW can't argue with marketing. But its not going to stop the ire against space marines and its certainly not going to help marine hate.

Slaaneshi Slave
19-12-2006, 18:19
Yup. I missed the comma out. :p Fixed. My point is the fact that MEq doesn't automaticaly equal Space marines. Armies like Witch hunters, Chaos and Necrons also are MEq.

Kahadras

Witch Hunters are not MEQ, sure they have the save, but they have none of the other points which equate to MEQ (toughness, versatility).

Cruentus
19-12-2006, 18:20
Any given Marine list can be made extremely effective. But in order to make a list maximally effective against hordes, you necessarily have to forgo some MEq killing power.

Marines are simply not best at shooting. Sorry. Maybe in the old Eldar codex - maybe - you might have had a point(I don't think so, but that's just me). Are they GOOD at it? Sure, of course. But in these days of 18" Avenger catapults, Bladestorm, T6 Wraithguard, Fire Prisms worth taking, cheap and abundant scatter lasers, and Doom, you cannot make a serious argument that Marines are BETTER shooters than Eldar.

The fact that your Flesh Tearers can take apart nids is great but not very meaningful. Blood Angels are not regular codex Marines. They play differently. Even so, I can't imagine that you regularly whomp 'nids with them in assaults. Sure, you have Death Company, but unless your friend is the worst roller in the entire world, Genestealers make mincemeat out of them.

To make them 'maximally effective', I'd agree, you have to make changes. The beauty of SM is that they don't have to be 'maximally effective' to be better than most codexes. Its what we call 'the power armor crutch'. You always have the 3+ save backing you up, which makes you hideously resilient, hence my move to DE and DH. Its hard to get over the withdrawal, but makes for more fun games (for me and my opponent). I mean, with T6, I'll use assault cannons, thank you. Or plasma guns, all cheap and on cheap platforms (termies excepted). Sure, some of the new Eldar stuff is nice, but its also way pricier compared to what it used to be.

Marines may only be marginally worse than Eldar, but they are also far better in assault, psychics, etc. Fear of the Darkness anyone? Psychic Hood?

After I posted, I remembered the BA vs. Marine part. However, I can build an almost identical list out of traited marines, and all I lose (aside from a couple of models), is the 4+ 'feel no pain' of the DC. Having the ability to give furious charge to everyone in the army more than makes up for the points costs. And I don't need to kill the Stealers, my super assault army has already shot them up with my 'sub par' marine shooting, or minimized their threat. Piling into gaunts and warriors with assault troops with furious charge clears out the fight really quickly. Its not the assault that does the Nids in, its the SM counterassault. ;)

And I'll agree with Azimaith that I would have preferred to have 2-3 extra pages for the other marine chapters in the back of the SM codex. I don't need an extra book, since I have traits. Heck, marines used to be just about different paint jobs, and the fluff you created. That's the way it should be...

Arhalien
19-12-2006, 18:24
X number of people working on Dark Angels codex, Y working on orks.
If there were no DA's then XY people working on ork codex.

That should be X+Y. XY is X multiplied by Y :p

azimaith
19-12-2006, 19:02
That should be X+Y. XY is X multiplied by Y :p
lol, are you my high school algebra teacher come to hunt me down or something?

Yes yes I know how it goes with variables.. Sheesh, algebra nazis, only on a geeky forum like warseer :).

Zerosoul
19-12-2006, 19:18
Yes and fantasy orcs are very characterful compared to the standard "Tolkien" orc.

I'm starting to think we're not using the same definition of "cliche" here.


Its not irrelevant when the miniatures hit the table. It means when miniatures hit the table their army list will be better suited to dealing with whatever list they happen to be fighting because they can tool against it. Fighting a list with MCs? Dump some more lascannons into tactical squads. Fighting a list with lots of 4+ saves? Throw in some heavy bolters onto the same tactical squads that would have been using Lascannons.

I'm going to snip both paragraphs because the answer is simple: stop playing with jerks. It never ceases to amaze me how many people just keep playing with creeps for no apparent reason. Play people with all-comers lists. The game is more challenging and entertaining that way. If someone looks at your army list and says "Oh, I'm going to change my stuff around to best beat your army", then of COURSE Marines are going to seem overpowered, just like any army would. "Deathwing, you say? Well, let me take a bunch of Trukk Boyz with choppaz..." All you're really saying is "tooled armies do better against the army they're tooled against than other armies".


You don't need to take advantage of them all at once, you just need whats advantageous to the opposing list. And that can go onto practically any squad you want it in.

And if you have enough models to switch out whatever you want to be more effective against any list, let me know, okay?


Not true, the reason why there is an overwhelming number of Marine armies is because they *win* tournaments. You've got it reveresed.

Prove it.


Have you ever seen a marine army tooled out to assault drop from drop pods?

Yes. I played against one at the last tournament I played in. I would have done pretty well against it had every pod in the army(and the two Termie squads besides) not come in on turn 2.


Last edition the whining about tyranids was about biovores with their flamer template acid mines and ordnance blast template weapons, not about seeding swarm, especially since only "Ferocious" units could assault out of Mycetic spores and they weren't drop pods, they were just deep strikes.

I heard plenty of whines about seeding swarm lists.



Hardly true. A tooled up starcannon army most certainly can destroy a marine army, but you don't shoot back at shooty armies. This is where versatility comes into play and you go out and beat their eldar faces in with assault units and drop pod BOO!

You don't NEED tooled-up Starcannon lists. I'd take a Dire Avenger/Fire Prism/Warp Spider list any day of the week over a tooled-up Starcannon list - which is a relic of 3rd Edition Starcannon-spam lists anyway, and wouldn't work all that well now. Eldar are capable of putting out vast, vast torrents of anti-infantry firepower and have assault squads to match. Go ahead. Drop pod BOO. Watch your power fail to go off because the Farseer has a relatively cheap upgrade and then your expensive command squad gets ripped apart. Or, bring on the assault Marines - hit the Dire Avengers with Defend that turn them into expensive regular Marines with pistols, or the banshees that will go first with power weapons even if you charge, or the Scorpions with their higher Initiative and storm of attacks.



They can be best at both because they can switch roles at the drop of a hat to use the optimal force. What happens if tyranids want to outshoot a Chaos army? Oh too bad, you can't, you can grab tons of devourers but you will never be as good as marines will (and you shouldn't), but marines who want to assault a tau army? No problem, they can do it just as well as tyranids.

First, I suspect you've never seen a really good, shooty 'nid army. A friend of mine consistently wins with an almost all-shooting 'nid army that are certainly more than capable of outshooting Chaos. Second, Marines certainly can't assault a Tau army as well as 'nids and I think that's an immensely silly thing to say. Marines are GOOD in assault - not great, but good. And unlike 'nids, they NEED either a Drop Pod(which means, welcome to a round standing out in the open) or a Transport(and we all know how well Tau can take out vehicles).


I didn't compare vehicles because they are the odd man out for armies. Some armies don't even have them so they don't fit, other armies only have 1. Besides vehicles aren't an army archetype.

Aren't an army archetype? The Guard would like to have a word with you...


And justify an ork codex delay? Or even an eldar codex delay? My God they could have just plopped a page on a PDF on the website and been fine.

Neither was the case. It's pretty clear that you don't know how publishing works. Do you really think that they would have just taken guys off the BT codex and slid them right over to the Orks, and then everybody would have been happy? Of course not. All these projects are going on at the same time, plus the Fantasy stuff, plus the Lord of the Rings stuff, plus all the stuff that comes from running a multinational corporation. Division of labor isn't as simple as "You have X people on this project, Y people on this, remove people from X and put them on Y and profit".


Why shouldn't they? They're bloody space marines aren't they? Marine codex's don't need to be stand alone. Just put a page or 2 in the back of C:SM and give the 2-3 units you added and be done with it rather than giving it a full development cycle like it was the *only codex the race had at all*.

Sure they're Space Marines. But, hey, Dark Eldar are just regular Eldar with open-topped skimmers, 2-3 units difference, and 80's heavy metal style, right? So they should've just gone in the back of the Eldar codex, right?


Is it really unique. Lets see:
X number of people working on Dark Angels codex, Y working on orks.
If there were no DA's then XY people working on ork codex. So yes, yes it would. What do you think the people working on the dark angels codex would be doing? Taking a quarter off? They'd be working on something else.

Of course they would. But do you think Orks and DAs are the only projects running right now? Hint: They're not.


Burna Boyz are fine, in fact most can be played by plain "Ork Boyz". Tank Busta models are fine looking as well. Rokkit boyz look fine, so do warbosses though a new warboss model would be nice, bigmeks already been released, Shoota boyz same as ork boyz, Flash gitz are converted shoota boyz, same with skar boyz and even eavy boyz. They don't necessarily need their own models, they don't come in huge squads other than flash gitz. Metal nobz are fine looking but would be better in a plastic kit. The only things that are really bad are the vehicle driver sculpts, gretchin, killa kanz, and gun batteries.

You're not an ork player. It's not really up to you to determine what's fine and what needs redone. Why should people who actually PLAY orks have to settle so you can have the codex out faster? GW is damned if they do & damned if they don't. If they rushed the codex out you have 'net people howling about the rush job and the crappy model support and the terrible editing and what have you. If they take their time they have those same 'net people howling about the delay and the marine favoritism and what have you. Just like all business decisions, it's a matter of which one is going to anger fewer people. Guess what? They took the slow path.



Then why didn't they just slap the couple new units into the back of codex space marines and release the upgrade sprue when it was done. They instead get their own production quarter.

DA players deserve support too. They could fit them in here. Simple as that.


So what? That makes it right for GW to push back xenos codex's that are so old that nearly no one plays them anymore (I'm looking at you dark eldar) to put out more marine codex's that just consist of a reprint of codex space marines +1-2 new units.

Which...is not what DA is at all, is it? Have you followed the rumors at all? Soemthing tells me not.



To make them 'maximally effective', I'd agree, you have to make changes. The beauty of SM is that they don't have to be 'maximally effective' to be better than most codexes. Its what we call 'the power armor crutch'. You always have the 3+ save backing you up, which makes you hideously resilient, hence my move to DE and DH. Its hard to get over the withdrawal, but makes for more fun games (for me and my opponent). I mean, with T6, I'll use assault cannons, thank you. Or plasma guns, all cheap and on cheap platforms (termies excepted). Sure, some of the new Eldar stuff is nice, but its also way pricier compared to what it used to be.

And a not-maximally-effective Marine list will get crunched by a list tooled for anti-Marines. There are so many things that take away the advantage of a good armor save that it's a joke.


Marines may only be marginally worse than Eldar, but they are also far better in assault, psychics, etc. Fear of the Darkness anyone? Psychic Hood?

Assault? Striking Scorpions/Banshees/Harlequins, the latter of which are almost certainly the best assault unit in the game? Psychics? Fear of the Darkness on 3d6 added together. Psychic hood has less than a 50% chance of working on any given roll.


After I posted, I remembered the BA vs. Marine part. However, I can build an almost identical list out of traited marines, and all I lose (aside from a couple of models), is the 4+ 'feel no pain' of the DC. Having the ability to give furious charge to everyone in the army more than makes up for the points costs. And I don't need to kill the Stealers, my super assault army has already shot them up with my 'sub par' marine shooting, or minimized their threat. Piling into gaunts and warriors with assault troops with furious charge clears out the fight really quickly. Its not the assault that does the Nids in, its the SM counterassault. ;)

I never once said anything about Marines having sub-par shooting. I specifically said they had good shooting, in fact. I also said they're not as good at it as an army that specializes in it. The fact that your list(which we haven't seen) can smash somebody else's list(which we also haven't seen) doesn't mean Marines are unbalanced.

Kahadras
19-12-2006, 19:50
Witch Hunters are not MEQ,

They're close enough IMO. 3+ save and a boltgun puts them a hell of a closer to MEq than TEq or GEq.

Kahadras

jfrazell
19-12-2006, 20:09
'Hammerwind' and 'to the Stars' can be easily represented with the current Codex.



The Lost and the Damned/Traitor lists I'd love to see properly fleshed out. Everything else is covered via the current Codex.



Pirates and 'Reconquista' (I'm assuming would be entirely aspect warriors...?) can be done through the current codex with imagination. Craftworld Codex would be appreciated again as would the Exodite...but who do the Exodite fight? Probably not that many enemies.



Not enough differentiation to warrant a full sub list.



All of the above asides from perhaps Tech Guard could be represented with Doctrines.

True however, you can make the same exact argument about marines. There should be no codexes outside of the vanilla codex. Everything else can be represented by traits.

And thats the flaw in the argument. If marines can be represented by their base codex, but aren't, then there is plenty of room for alternate guard and xenos codexes.

azimaith
19-12-2006, 20:32
I'm starting to think we're not using the same definition of "cliche" here.

When I say cliche I mean the same exact things making up the same subject. Yes orks share similar traits, there brutish, they're barbaric and humanoid. Now maybe if they were born from orc mothers they'd be cliches. But they're fungi, who draw on the unconscious power of a the WAAAGH battle cry to make themselves better. They're different enough to be very easy to distinguish. Look at orcs from Tolkein and compare them to say orcs from dungeons and dragons and they're basically carbon copies.



I'm going to snip both paragraphs because the answer is simple: stop playing with jerks. It never ceases to amaze me how many people just keep playing with creeps for no apparent reason. Play people with all-comers lists.

First off, most people I come across besides a small group of friends write their army lists on premises. What am I going to do? Jump on them and say: "You can't take those heavy bolters you must be tooling! That can't be your normal list!"



The game is more challenging and entertaining that way. If someone looks at your army list and says "Oh, I'm going to change my stuff around to best beat your army", then of COURSE Marines are going to seem overpowered, just like any army would. "Deathwing, you say? Well, let me take a bunch of Trukk Boyz with choppaz..." All you're really saying is "tooled armies do better against the army they're tooled against than other armies".

But here is the *sad*. If someone tooling their list against you makes them seem overpowered, and practically everyone tools up against space marines, why aren't space marines considered the weakest list in the game? Because marines are capable of dealing with being tooled against because of their versatility.



And if you have enough models to switch out whatever you want to be more effective against any list, let me know, okay?
Models aren't the issue here, some people have been collecting marines since they were released.



Prove it.

Easily, if more won due to the mere percentage of their player base then marines would be represented in the top ranks in proportion to the number of tyranid/ork/guard/whatever players, and not out of proportion.

So lets take the generally used number of 40% space marine player in the player base. If space marines are balanced as such they should not exceed or go under 40% of the total wins in the GT for non-sportmanship/painting prizes.

So lets take a look at the 2005-6 heat.There are 58 space marine/csm/variant players out of 94 players. The top 46 players contain 33 space marine players/variants, well over 50% of the tournaments upper half.
So far this shows the space marines are already clustering well to the top. But thats only half the picture, this list is including CSM and SM so theres going to be more, whats important is how many are there in comparision to other races.

There are 7 eldar players total. 5 of which are in the top 46.
There are 6 Tyranid players total. 3 of which are in the top 46.
There are 5 Dark Eldar players, 2 of which are in the top 46.
There are 3 Imperial Guard players, 1 of which is in the top 46.
There are 3 tau players, 1 of which is in the top 46.
Necrons, kroot mercenaries, and orkz don't even make any to the top 46.

So if we were to assume these numbers were indicative of the total 40k player base (which they aren't because space marines are wildly over emphasized, that still means we need to find out what percentage is in in the winning half.
5/7 eldar is equal to 71.42% So who is obviously trumping space marines? Well obviously the space marine killers. But being a partner if crime doesn't make any one member any less innocent.
3/6 is 50% So half half. This is what we should be seeing for every race if they were "balanced in power and player, but players are variables, but there should be a regularized curve.
2/5 Dark Eldar is 40% of dark eldar. Below average.
1/3 IG, 33% way below.
1/3 Tau, 33%, way below.
So 33/58 for space marines = 56%. So the scale goes:
Eldar, Space marines, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, IG, Tau with Orkz, Necron, and Kroots not even scorring.

So it would seem pretty balanced out right huh? Nope. Now we take into account tooling. What list are GT's tooled for. Space marines, not tyranids, not kroot, not IG or Tau, Space marines. So that means SM pulled out an above average number with a tournament full of armies tooled against them. And whose the best at tooling versus space marines? Obviously pre-2shot starcannon eldar.

This is like saying giving a Tyranid player a 100 pound barbell and him lifting it for 10 seconds while giving a marine player a 300 point barbell and having him lift it for 10 seconds and saying they're equal.




Yes. I played against one at the last tournament I played in. I would have done pretty well against it had every pod in the army(and the two Termie squads besides) not come in on turn 2.

Its called lysander wing.



I heard plenty of whines about seeding swarm lists.

I heard plenty of whines about alot of lists then. Someone whining about the seeding swarm is not the same as 100 people whining about the seeding swarm. I can find a person who will whine against *any* list, its the numbers that matter, and there is a huge number arrayed against marines, and MeQ's in general.




You don't NEED tooled-up Starcannon lists. I'd take a Dire Avenger/Fire Prism/Warp Spider list any day of the week over a tooled-up Starcannon list - which is a relic of 3rd Edition Starcannon-spam lists anyway, and wouldn't work all that well now. Eldar are capable of putting out vast, vast torrents of anti-infantry firepower and have assault squads to match.

Thats because starcannons were nerfed. They didn't used to be. And I certainly never claimed eldar were the most balanced list ever either.



Go ahead. Drop pod BOO. Watch your power fail to go off because the Farseer has a relatively cheap upgrade and then your expensive command squad gets ripped apart.

Your expensive command squad is behind a wall of vehicles that become size 3 area terrain after they're destroyed. And runes of warding are rare if they appear at all in Eldar lists.



Or, bring on the assault Marines - hit the Dire Avengers with Defend that turn them into expensive regular Marines with pistols, or the banshees that will go first with power weapons even if you charge, or the Scorpions with their higher Initiative and storm of attacks.

Its rather stupid to charge your medium assault unit into an enemies best assault unit. Against a "defend" dire avenger they're just going to be beaten down by the hidden powerfist and massed attacks (2 per marine) plus the almost obligatory chaplain whose along for the ride. Charging into banshees and scorpions with assault marines is foolish, you just shoot them in the face.



First, I suspect you've never seen a really good, shooty 'nid army. A friend of mine consistently wins with an almost all-shooting 'nid army that are certainly more than capable of outshooting Chaos.

I suspect the shooting chaos army you've seen isn't very good then. I play against a guy here whose a constant terminator player whose got an ungodly strong tournament style CSM army.



Second, Marines certainly can't assault a Tau army as well as 'nids and I think that's an immensely silly thing to say. Marines are GOOD in assault - not great, but good.

Not great? You practically have a carnifex in every single squad with a powerfist with more attacks and more wounds.



And unlike 'nids, they NEED either a Drop Pod(which means, welcome to a round standing out in the open) or a Transport(and we all know how well Tau can take out vehicles).

Standing out in the open? Have you played against a compentent drop pod army where people actually deploy behind their line of drop pods rather than deploying in front of everything in your firing line? Nids have to go out into the open too, they're not magical teleporting bugs, they run at them, only a few hit turn 2, most hit turn 3, which means hey, we get to join you in getting shot while running around in the open but we get a 6+ save while you get a 3+. As for taking out vehicles, sure they can take out single vehicles very well, who cares, they can't take out rubble piles that still block line of sight.



Aren't an army archetype? The Guard would like to have a word with you...

Sorry, its not, vehicle heavy armies with big guns are just another way of using a high shooting army.



Neither was the case. It's pretty clear that you don't know how publishing works. Do you really think that they would have just taken guys off the BT codex and slid them right over to the Orks, and then everybody would have been happy? Of course not.

Are you actually attempting to tell me that if there was no one on working on the black templars codex that there wouldn't be more manpower to spread around? Do you think that human resource just pops out of the ground only for certain projects?



All these projects are going on at the same time, plus the Fantasy stuff, plus the Lord of the Rings stuff, plus all the stuff that comes from running a multinational corporation. Division of labor isn't as simple as "You have X people on this project, Y people on this, remove people from X and put them on Y and profit".

And the project you put it on could be *ORKZ* now couldn't it, considering that 40k is games workshops biggest cash cow. Its certainly not impossible that they would put them on orks, considering the success of 40k its actually probable.



Sure they're Space Marines. But, hey, Dark Eldar are just regular Eldar with open-topped skimmers, 2-3 units difference, and 80's heavy metal style, right? So they should've just gone in the back of the Eldar codex, right?

No, dark eldar are very different, their units are totally different, their vehicles are totally different. Dark eldar aren't "Dark Guardian Identical points to guardian, 'Dark Cannon" (See starcannon) They've got an entire range of unique models.

Space marines its the same stuff from codex space marines with a new name and one new special ability with everything else copied and pasted. The only thing in Dark Eldar that is carried over from Eldar is *Dark lances*, unlike the dreadnaughts, land raiders, drop pods, assault cannons of marine chapters.



Of course they would. But do you think Orks and DAs are the only projects running right now? Hint: They're not.
So let me get this straight. Because they're working on other projects too, theres somehow zero, as in nill chance they could possibly ever be assigned to the ork codex for their best selling game. I'm sorry but that is the silliest thing i've heard in a long time.



You're not an ork player.

Yes, I am. I play blood axes and Death Skulls swapping out models between the two to make more out of less models.



It's not really up to you to determine what's fine and what needs redone. Why should people who actually PLAY

You mean like me?



orks have to settle so you can have the codex out faster?

Yes, why not delay the codex indefinately, it will be the 40k "Duke Nukem Forever". Settle for what? The codex will be released eventually and just because its released sooner doesn't mean it will be bad. Your "points" are getting weaker and weaker.



GW is damned if they do & damned if they don't. If they rushed the codex out you have 'net people howling about the rush job and the crappy model support and the terrible editing and what have you.

Who said anything about rushing. Its out when its out, it just does so faster because more people are working on it. Getting a codex out on a reasonable time line, IE not years after the first was published, is not rushing. If getting the DA team onto Orkz gets it out Spring or even summer 2008 rather than Christmas 2008 theres a big difference and they don't have to rush anything at all.



If they take their time they have those same 'net people howling about the delay and the marine favoritism and what have you.

Yes, imagine if codex space marines was delayed *years* after it was released for third edition. Sorry this doesn't fly. Theres taking your time to do it right and outright not doing it at all. According to GW new codex production begins practically as soon as the old one comes out, that meanst they've had a very long time to "get it right" much longer than they've had for Space Marines, Tyranids, Tau, or Eldar. Its slow to come out not because they're being careful, but because they're not doing it until they finish space marine chapter 24XYZ"Green marines who like robes"



Just like all business decisions, it's a matter of which one is going to anger fewer people. Guess what? They took the slow path.

No, they took the 'Not worrying about it at all for a year" path. The fact they pumped out 3 seperate Xenos codex's, some quite swiftly after their last release yet held off on orks doesn't show careful planning, it shows *negligence*.



DA players deserve support too. They could fit them in here. Simple as that.

Sure DA players deserve support. But orkz were standing in line for a year before them, so who should get it first. Looks like space marines believe in cutting in line.



Which...is not what DA is at all, is it? Have you followed the rumors at all? Soemthing tells me not.

Really so do the rumors include:
'No tactical marine squads."
"No Imperial weapon copies"
"No land raiders."
"No Dreadnaughts"
"No heavy support choices with Codex: Space Marines.
Because unless they have at least 4 of these its not worth a new codex.

Slaaneshi Slave
19-12-2006, 20:35
They're close enough IMO. 3+ save and a boltgun puts them a hell of a closer to MEq than TEq or GEq.

Kahadras

I can't argue with that, but I tend to see them as a law unto themselves. They have a radically different playstyle than any other army.

Leo
19-12-2006, 20:43
1: They're giant walking cliches. "Oh look, im a superhuman ultrastrong uber bad-ass-super-brightly colored-good guy-elite-ninja-with-hands-the-size-of-hubcaps-with-kung-fu-grip marines" *Edited for MrBigMr.*

Very much true, but an Eldar player certainly wouldn´t begrugde an army an overabundance of clichés and a background that yells "better than you" in all directions, would he?



Another reason why we're getting sick of Space Marines... The self righteous people who come out of the woodwork to defend them.


erhh, so now Space Marine players are bad not only because of their respective set of plastic toys but also because they won´t just accept being labled with derogatory comments on an almost daily basis?
I agree, though, that they might have gotten used to it by now.

Zedsdead pretty much said it: The Warseer forums are probably not a very nice place to be for someone with a marine army.
You get to read anti marine bitching in virtually every post, no matter what topic.
One guy once said, that he´d like to keep track on how long it takes for a thread until someone posts insult towards marines for a month or two and then work out an average.
I stopped recommending the Warseer forums to anyone because of this hostile behaviour.

azimaith
19-12-2006, 21:04
Very much true, but an Eldar player certainly wouldn´t begrugde an army an overabundance of clichés and a background that yells "better than you" in all directions, would he?
I'm no huge fan of eldar either.



erhh, so now Space Marine players are bad not only because of their respective set of plastic toys but also because they won´t just accept being labled with derogatory comments on an almost daily basis?
I agree, though, that they might have gotten used to it by now.

Players can defend their armies as much as they like, as long as they do it with logic and not fanboyism. And that goes for everyone.

Getz
19-12-2006, 21:20
erhh, so now Space Marine players are bad not only because of their respective set of plastic toys but also because they won&#180;t just accept being labled with derogatory comments on an almost daily basis?
I agree, though, that they might have gotten used to it by now.

Actually, I was wrong to have said that and I fully retract the staement and apologise to all concerned. At the time I was irritated about something entirely separate and vented that irritation in an unacceptable manner.

Nevertheless, this thread would have died a death a long time ago if certain people had simply read our explanations of why we're fed up with Marines all the time and left it at that - but instead, those people have decided to tell us that we're wrong.

That is, that our subjective opinions - which are based upon personal intepretations and reponses to the manner in which GW chooses to conduct it's business - are wrong. :eyebrows:

If that's not the very definition of Self Righteousness, then I'm not sure what is...

Zerosoul
19-12-2006, 21:32
When I say cliche I mean the same exact things making up the same subject.

That's not a cliche. That's a copy.


First off, most people I come across besides a small group of friends write their army lists on premises. What am I going to do? Jump on them and say: "You can't take those heavy bolters you must be tooling! That can't be your normal list!"

Stop playing them until they bring an army list ahead of time. Simple as that.



But here is the *sad*. If someone tooling their list against you makes them seem overpowered, and practically everyone tools up against space marines, why aren't space marines considered the weakest list in the game? Because marines are capable of dealing with being tooled against because of their versatility.

Because tooling lists can be successful to varying degrees, particularly if you want to have a list capable of doing more than taking on Marines. Tell you what - play a Marine list againt a 3rd Ed. Starcannon-CTM list and see if Marines still feel powerful to you.


Models aren't the issue here, some people have been collecting marines since they were released.

And some people haven't, and don't have a wide range of miniatures to choose from.


Easily, if more won due to the mere percentage of their player base then marines would be represented in the top ranks in proportion to the number of tyranid/ork/guard/whatever players, and not out of proportion.

So lets take the generally used number of 40% space marine player in the player base. If space marines are balanced as such they should not exceed or go under 40% of the total wins in the GT for non-sportmanship/painting prizes.

I'm just going to cut this off right here. This isn't proof. This is a series of assumptions, so I'll start with your base assumption - Why should 40% Marine players necessarily translate into 40% or less total wins if they're balanced? What warrants that?



Its called lysander wing.

No, it's actually called drop pod Marines, thanks. If I'd meant Lysander Wing I'd have said it. You asked me if I'd played against a list tooled out to assault from drop pods. Yes I have. That list I mentioned. There's even a battle report somewhere in the tactics forum.


I heard plenty of whines about alot of lists then. Someone whining about the seeding swarm is not the same as 100 people whining about the seeding swarm. I can find a person who will whine against *any* list, its the numbers that matter, and there is a huge number arrayed against marines, and MeQ's in general.

Trust me when I tell you Internet whining means absolutely nothing.


Your expensive command squad is behind a wall of vehicles that become size 3 area terrain after they're destroyed. And runes of warding are rare if they appear at all in Eldar lists.

Vehicles continue to block line of sight as their profile once destroyed. Pure line of sight. If you've been using them as area terrain, well, your fault.

...Runes of Witnessing are rare? Okay.


Its rather stupid to charge your medium assault unit into an enemies best assault unit. Against a "defend" dire avenger they're just going to be beaten down by the hidden powerfist and massed attacks (2 per marine) plus the almost obligatory chaplain whose along for the ride. Charging into banshees and scorpions with assault marines is foolish, you just shoot them in the face.

No, against Defend Dire Avengers they'll probably kill a couple. Add in a PW/Shimmershield and you have a great tarpit unit, chaplain or no. You don't care if they live. You care if they hold up the assault for one turn so you can get help in.


I suspect the shooting chaos army you've seen isn't very good then. I play against a guy here whose a constant terminator player whose got an ungodly strong tournament style CSM army.

Or it could be that you've never seen strong shooty Tyranids, I guess, but whatever.


Not great? You practically have a carnifex in every single squad with a powerfist with more attacks and more wounds.

And the ability to die in one round of shooting from any halfway decent unit, the ability to be denied its attacks through clever positioning and casualty removal...

Where's Brainfire Bob's signature, again?

Other than one more thing, never mind. You're going to see Marines as unbalanced no matter what I say.


Really so do the rumors include:
'No tactical marine squads."
"No Imperial weapon copies"
"No land raiders."
"No Dreadnaughts"
"No heavy support choices with Codex: Space Marines.
Because unless they have at least 4 of these its not worth a new codex.

It's just a good thing you don't get to pick what's worth a new codex and what's not, huh?

Kriegsherr
19-12-2006, 22:09
Witch Hunters are not MEQ, sure they have the save, but they have none of the other points which equate to MEQ (toughness, versatility).

A very important point! Sisters are not on the same power/costeffectivness-level as marines.

Sure, the numbercruncher might add that they are a little bit better at 12" close range firefights than marines. But what about long-range firepower (were only the exorcist and maybe the rare heavy bolters can deliver something), what about close combat (were the almighty 4 T and S really take its toll even on the CC-experts in the sisters list)? And that equation already includes their higher numbers and cheaper point costs.

So IMHO, while sisters, standart-sisters at least, are a little bit to cheap compared to IG Soldiers (a fight between IG and Sisters in Dense terrain or on small tables usually tend to be very one-sided.... lots of flamers and bolters, and power armour is exactly what IG struggles against), this is also a marine problem, because the marines low point cost makes the whole mid-tier fighters point cost somewhat random....

Skyweir
19-12-2006, 22:12
Sure they're Space Marines. But, hey, Dark Eldar are just regular Eldar with open-topped skimmers, 2-3 units difference, and 80's heavy metal style, right? So they should've just gone in the back of the Eldar codex, right?

Acctually, I would have settled for this (and accutally thought that was coming in the new Eldar codex) rather than having the army locked in development limbo with no release in the next 2 years at the closest. In which time I can grantee you that at least 2 if not three marine codeces has been released....

Anyway, you mean to say that if the Dark Angels were never in development for a new codex they wouldn't have more people to put on the Orks, thereby bringing it out faster? Perhaps these deveopers/writers/playtesters are only capable of developing Space Marines? That would expalin a lot.

tuebor
19-12-2006, 22:17
and power armour is exactly what IG struggles against

I think it's more a combination of power armour and T4 that IG struggles with. When playing against Sisters I cause enough wounds with my lasguns that they have to fail some saves. Against Marines I've had many, many times where I fired an entire platoon (55 men) worth of Guardsmen into a single tactical squad and killed 2 or 3 Marines. If I have bad luck with my special and heavy weapons, or fail to take lascannons, missile launchers or plasma guns I sometimes don't do anything.

Leo
19-12-2006, 22:25
well, you guys are fast.

@Getz

Oki, we all are in a bad mood sometimes, lets leave it at that.
It´s not that I even disagree with your opinion on GWs puplication policy at all. All special armies and rip off lists could have waited until after the big Codexes.

On the topic of releasing those rip off lists before because of time (writing the orc codex would take time anyway) I cannot say anything, since I don´t really know how that stuff actually works. I can understand that Orc players get miffed, though.

I don´t agree that marine lists are more powerful than other lists. I´ve had my share of victories and defeats against them. No idea about tournaments since I generally don´t like the prospect of making 40k that competitive. Too much attitude floating around.



I'm no huge fan of eldar either.


Well I am ^^
I actually have opinions about each an all of the existing 40k races. In many cases these are unreasonably strong, considering that we are talking about a bunch of toy models with a few stupid stories about them.
Obviously I am in good company on warseer. That isn´t new to me. I´ve been on message boards for some time now.
What I cannot understand is that the general urge to voice them is not only so very strong (as Wraithbored said: It´s the internet, it was invented for that kind of stuff) but also apparently off balance.
Perhaps I wouldn´t be so irritated if that board had its fair share of anti ork/tau/eldar bitching. But all I see these days are the ever repeating flamings against marines.
This is really unfair and rude since marines are often picked by beginners who might then make the mistake of coming here for help or just a good read.

Insulting them will probably not help keeping them in the hobby, let alone interest them in other armies.

azimaith
19-12-2006, 22:27
That's not a cliche. That's a copy.

cli·ché /kliˈʃeɪ, klɪ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[klee-shey, kli-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a trite, stereotyped expression; a sentence or phrase, usually expressing a popular or common thought or idea, that has lost originality, ingenuity, and impact by long overuse, as sadder but wiser, or strong as an ox.
2. (in art, literature, drama, etc.) a trite or hackneyed plot, character development, use of color, musical expression, etc.
3. anything that has become trite or commonplace through overuse.
4. British Printing.
a. a stereotype or electrotype plate.
b. a reproduction made in a like manner.
–adjective
5. trite; hackneyed; stereotyped; clichéd.




Stop playing them until they bring an army list ahead of time. Simple as that.

I live on an island, we only have one game store that runs them regularly I can get to withou 4 hours in traffic. Besides, I don't care if they tool, I tool against space marines and I fight them alot. So the way I see it that is supposed to make us even.



Because tooling lists can be successful to varying degrees, particularly if you want to have a list capable of doing more than taking on Marines. Tell you what - play a Marine list againt a 3rd Ed. Starcannon-CTM list and see if Marines still feel powerful to you.

There are no third edition marines nor 3rd edition eldar anymore. I'm not interested in the state of third edition, i'm interested in the state of 4rth edition. I won't argue certain armies are more powerful against certain armies, but that doesn't mean that its not unbalanced. My tyranids rip apart IG but have a very difficult time versus eldar, theres just no way to tool around it. It gets worse the more skimmers they take. Same thing, I've played IG forces versus a drop pod marine force. I barely got a chance to do anything before they ripped me apart. Double tap plasma be damned at 12" it wasn't enough.



And some people haven't, and don't have a wide range of miniatures to choose from.

Let them proxy.



I'm just going to cut this off right here. This isn't proof. This is a series of assumptions, so I'll start with your base assumption - Why should 40% Marine players necessarily translate into 40% or less total wins if they're balanced? What warrants that?

Who said anything about 40% total wins? Its just showing that theres a whole lot more space marine forces in the tournament than the estimated percentage of players who play space marines as a whole.Thus more space marines than normal. What I said specifically what matters is how many space marine armies were in the top 50% of the list. 50% means that half below half above, which would indicate relative power level compared to other armies. A very powerful army would have more players in the top 50% than the weaker armies. Space marines are at 58%, which is fine for margine of error terms. What pushes it over is that armies in GTs are tooled to fight space marines, thus they were playing with a significant handicap. Thus showing that space marines are a step above other armies but a leap behind eldar (who had 3 shot starcannon doom armies at the time.) Does this mean eldar were overpowered? Against marines, yes. Their win ratio should have floated around 50% give or take.




Trust me when I tell you Internet whining means absolutely nothing.

So why bring it up about seeding swarm? Thats why I talk to people at the store and friends who've been playing since warhammer 40k was released, not to forums.



Vehicles continue to block line of sight as their profile once destroyed. Pure line of sight. If you've been using them as area terrain, well, your fault.

First off, LOS is what matters, second off if you haven't been using them as area terrain you are not following the rules on page 68. It blocks LOS as if it were intact, counts as difficult terrain for infantry movement and provides a 4+ cover save for models on top or looking around it. Thats area terrain.



...Runes of Witnessing are rare? Okay.

Runes of witnessing don't make it harder for people to cast psychic powers. Runes of warding do. Runes of witnessing are practically universal, runes of warding aren't. Who knows your meta game I suppose.



No, against Defend Dire Avengers they'll probably kill a couple. Add in a PW/Shimmershield and you have a great tarpit unit, chaplain or no. You don't care if they live. You care if they hold up the assault for one turn so you can get help in.

They don't have to kill them all, just enough to make them run, and with 2 power weapons in the squad, one of which being on a very nasty IC its going to be quite damaging.



Or it could be that you've never seen strong shooty Tyranids, I guess, but whatever.

I've *played* strong shooty tyranids. They are not on par with space marines. I play orkz, necrons, tyranids, IG and Armored Company.




And the ability to die in one round of shooting from any halfway decent unit, the ability to be denied its attacks through clever positioning and casualty removal...

Oh yeah clever positioning like "Charge closest to closest." Just put the powerfist in the center of the squad and theres nothing I can do. As for casualty removal, theres not much hope to get away when its a squad of 6 genestealers who all charged to contact as many bases as possible and started closest to closest as required by the rules.



Other than one more thing, never mind. You're going to see Marines as unbalanced no matter what I say.

Why don't you say something that proves me wrong instead of just calling me wrong or saying I don't know what i'm talking about. Evidence speaks with authority.



It's just a good thing you don't get to pick what's worth a new codex and what's not, huh?
The last stand of a desperate debater is to insult his opponent. Rather than provide evidence to why i'm wrong you make fun of me. Smooth.

Slaaneshi Slave
19-12-2006, 22:31
Azimaith, you are flaming him, just as much as he is flaming you. I suggest you both take a step back and let the fire brigade in before you both get warnings from the admins.

azimaith
19-12-2006, 22:34
Insulting them will probably not help keeping them in the hobby, let alone interest them in other armies.
They can come here and ask for as much help as they like. Thats what the SM tactica thread is for. The only time you see this immense backlash against marines is whens someone makes a thread saying: "Why do you all hate marines?" Its like sticking an M80 fire cracker into a bee hive. So we all feel compelled to say why we don't like them or are sick of them or whatever. Theres a real question of whether we need to keep more marine players *in* the hobby. I think we've got quite enough already. I'd prefer to prod them in the direction of IG over saying "Marines are stupid and annoying." But I don't go around threads asking for help playing marines because I don't really like the race at all, much less want to encourage people to play them. I'd rather just leave them alone, they'll find out soon enough.


Azimaith, you are flaming him, just as much as he is flaming you. I suggest you both take a step back and let the fire brigade in before you both get warnings from the admins.

Where did I call him a name? Because it seems i'm not the most perceptive person when it comes to not insulting people (unintentionally). I'm trying to get him to give me evidence to prove me right or wrong. Its a learning experience, we all benefit from it, and there may well be factors I haven't taken into account here that he is.

BrainFireBob
19-12-2006, 22:40
Actually, I was wrong to have said that and I fully retract the staement and apologise to all concerned. At the time I was irritated about something entirely separate and vented that irritation in an unacceptable manner.

Nevertheless, this thread would have died a death a long time ago if certain people had simply read our explanations of why we're fed up with Marines all the time and left it at that - but instead, those people have decided to tell us that we're wrong.

That is, that our subjective opinions - which are based upon personal intepretations and reponses to the manner in which GW chooses to conduct it's business - are wrong. :eyebrows:

If that's not the very definition of Self Righteousness, then I'm not sure what is...

I appreciate that, Getz.

You're leaving out a category, though: Interpreting what GW's doing differently.

GW is doing slower releases, tightening the codices, and filling out their model lines. Marines are a great starting place. If the Marine variants are successful, then we might well see things like Codex: Exodites- at least, this fits GW's historical "test the waters" policy.

I don't think we can conclude GW is devoutly trying to force Marine variants this edition- we simply don't know enough about long-term plans.

As I said before, I'd rather a DA dex now than nothing for 40K for half a year.

Part of the problem is GW taking the time to do thorough jobs, and address actual concerns- it's no longer valid to say "Orks have waited this many years" for a codex. It IS valid to say that since 4th Edition, Orks will be what, the 6th codex? The fact it's been a few years isn't relevent when the codex release schedule is so slow.

Slaaneshi Slave
19-12-2006, 22:41
There you go again azimaith, saying we don't need to keep them in the hobby. Let it lie.

Splagbot
19-12-2006, 22:47
I don't think that GW are forcing marines in this edition they don't need to, marines will always sell as a lot of new people in the hobby will collect them as their first army (my nephew for example) and I certainly don't think that there are too many marine players, other armies seem to be very popular these days and although they don't match them in sales I imagine Eldar and Orks do fairly well themselves.

Personally I quite like marines, although I must say I much prefer the idea of marines during the Great Crusade than modern day marines, they where just more heroic, although I can see how some people could get fed up with them I suppose.

Black Mage
19-12-2006, 22:49
Personally, I'm curious why people assume that resources allocated towards Marine codexes would automatically delay the release of other codexes? At a certain point, you're going to get too many cooks in the kitchen, particularly I would think with the development teams.

Ideas are good, but too many ideas can bog down progress. Furthermore, If Orks are still in the concept stage, that may well leave the modellers sitting around twiddling their thumbs, so why not have them work on something that'll bag GW money that's relatively quick and simple? I see the Eldar and Ork codexes as being complete overhauls, which are also being carried over to the miniatures line. This of course takes considerable time and effort, not all of which can be completed at once. Simply re-allocating resources doesn't exactly work in the real world as it does in Civilization. These Marine dexes are, imo, exactly what they appear, filler to get us from one codex revamp to the next.

As a long time Black Templar player, I do feel some guilt in contributing to the MEQ problem, but I certainly wouldn't take any from anyone who wanted to have at me for playing an army that I think is fun to me. That's what the game is about right, fun?

But I've gotten bored with my Black Templars, so now I play Guard, and they're loads of fun!

BrainFireBob
19-12-2006, 23:05
Black Mage-

Pretty much a straight "agreed" across the board. But there are people that would rather have NOTHING during the long span between completely overhauled Xenos codices than Marine variants "pushing them back." Even if they aren't- because it's not at all proven they are.

Zerosoul
19-12-2006, 23:16
Only one thing to say, as I don't see prolonging this discussion doing anything but getting us both in trouble and we're more or less at an impasse.


The last stand of a desperate debater is to insult his opponent. Rather than provide evidence to why i'm wrong you make fun of me. Smooth.

I didn't insult you, or if I did, it was unintentional. It was intended to be wry. The fact of the matter is, you can make a set of criteria that determines whether or not, in your view, an army deserves an entire codex to themselves or not. That doesn't mean that said set of criteria means anything. It IS a good thing to me that that set of opinions doesn't get to determine who gets a codex and when because I like more Marine codexes - and I'm a xeno player.

azimaith
19-12-2006, 23:22
The fact of the matter is, you can make a set of criteria that determines whether or not, in your view, an army deserves an entire codex to themselves or not.

This is true. But I feel there would have to be some sort of obvious difference like Eldar vs Dark Eldar for it to really *require* its only codex. Not just a new unit or 2 and a photocopy.


That doesn't mean that said set of criteria means anything. It IS a good thing to me that that set of opinions doesn't get to determine who gets a codex and when because I like more Marine codexes - and I'm a xeno player.
Well your like of Marine codex's is as much an opinion as mine, your in luck as GW seems to like more marine codex's to.

Well there really isn't a point in complaining about something thats already happening, i've said what I felt about the issue and i've heard other ideas and grown wiser for the experience. In the end it will be the developers who decide, after all. After all no one, including me, is forced to buy anything anyhow.

AngryAngel
20-12-2006, 05:02
You know..the only reason I posted on here was because I got tired of seeing marines thrown in the mud every two seconds. Marine players have the same right every army has to feel proud of their units, their tactics and the models they spend lots of money and time on.

The biggest thing I wanted to say was wrong about all this, is the hate. You know what hate does ? Pull people apart, destroy people and lead to bitterness and bad feelings. While warhammer 40k my be only war in the grim darkness of the future, we as players can choose to not hate each other.

There is no way to prove who is right and who is wrong on this, its all a matter of opinion. The one thing that isn't however is that hate in all its forms only hurts, and it has never once helped. Lets just stop the out of game inter army hate, is that too much to request ?

I for one as a marine player don't cheese people out, I have never tooled my list against someone else. I make my army lists before hand..and just make a few to be able to handle most situations hopefully. I don't ask what I'm fighting till after I've picked my list. I like the challenge and I think it heightens good tactics.

As I told a friend once who was feeling down about a seeming horrible loss. Anyone can win and hold on when the odds are all in their favor, takes some tenacity, skill and luck to win when things are going rough. I think those are the best and most enjoyable games, pulling victory from the hands of defeat.

We're a community, and even on the net people have feelings. No one likes to be bashed down all the time. I'd just like it if we took a stand to stop the hate, and just realize. We all want to have fun, we're all in this game to have fun. We're smart people aren't we ? Lets act like it. Hate is very stupid.

Curufew
20-12-2006, 05:50
I've no problem with Marines players but I have problems with those Marines players that cry cheese when you beat them.

Nazguire
20-12-2006, 06:17
I've no problem with Marines players but I have problems with those Marines players that cry cheese when you beat them.

Those type of people would cry cheese regardless whether they played Marines or Eldar or Orks or Chaos.

JaBoK
20-12-2006, 06:34
Yea, like in this one 1000 point game I had 5 eldar tanks, and they actually called me cheezy! How unfair.

Khaine's Messenger
20-12-2006, 07:55
The only time you see this immense backlash against marines is whens someone makes a thread saying: "Why do you all hate marines?" Its like sticking an M80 fire cracker into a bee hive. So we all feel compelled to say why we don't like them or are sick of them or whatever.

For those who possess short memories, the same thing came up in the "Why do people hate Eldar? (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38134)" thread. Everyone has their pet peeves about all the armies, and many are willing to put forward hypothesis they do not personally support (or even care about the ramifications of) when describing what they know to be others' feelings. The biggest thing to take from this thread (and the Eldar one) is that a lot of the problems presented are purely social ones much broader than the armylist or the simple economics of the situation. Which is why I think things like a good gaming group are important to the development of the hobby.

Anathema
20-12-2006, 10:24
You know..the only reason I posted on here was because I got tired of seeing marines thrown in the mud every two seconds. Marine players have the same right every army has to feel proud of their units, their tactics and the models they spend lots of money and time on.


Of course they have and I don't think that anyone can convincingly argue otherwise. There are 2 main problems that have been brought up (aside from pointless whining). They are:

1. There are many more marine and chaos marine armies out there than any other type of army. People get sick of playing them.

2. A 4th Ed. problem. The release schedule for codexes is effectively: Marine variant, Xenos, Marine variant, Xenos etc. Expect to see Codex: Blood Angels released after Orks or whichever xenos race gets the one after DA. The only variation in this might be a cheap and easy overhaul of an existing but OK codex a la Tau. Necrons spring to mind. This annoys people who would much rather see all efforts put into updating outdated and very old xenos codexes so we could get a bit more variety back into the game quicker instead of seeing yet more marine armies.

Unfortunately, problem 2 is only going to exacerbate problem 1. I don;t mind playing marines as I'm one of those players who've learnt to beat marines convinvingly with my all-comers armies if I play well. Many experienced players have. I do object to seeing millions of them at tournaments though as it cuts down variety. I'd much rather lose to an army I don't play very often such as DE where I have to think and learn things than go through the motions to beat a 6 man las/plas 'n' speeder based army.

Forbiddenknowledge
20-12-2006, 10:31
A big problem I have with marines, is actually more of a problem with the 4th edition rather than marines themselves - the lack of armour save mods.

As it is, I am, when money and time allows trying to build a fluffy Tanith Guard army. Now, fluff wise, the only plasma is Harks pistol, the main specials are flamers. This puts me at a huge disadvantage against MEQ's.

Right. 10 man guard unit. They can have, GL, Flamer, Plasma and melta (I think).
Now, I'd much rather take the flamer, and GL, as these seem much more "guard" weapons, than a plasma. But if I want to do some reasonable damage to a MEQ, I have to take plasma, as with the current AP, its the only thing that will allow a good chance of a kill. If there were ASM's, then I could happily take flamers/Gl's, knowing that they still have a good chance against MEQ's, even if it was only -1 from a flamer, that would make a world of difference.

Kriegsherr
20-12-2006, 11:11
I think it's more a combination of power armour and T4 that IG struggles with. When playing against Sisters I cause enough wounds with my lasguns that they have to fail some saves. Against Marines I've had many, many times where I fired an entire platoon (55 men) worth of Guardsmen into a single tactical squad and killed 2 or 3 Marines. If I have bad luck with my special and heavy weapons, or fail to take lascannons, missile launchers or plasma guns I sometimes don't do anything.

Well, the funny thing is, I've found out that most of the times someone in our group relied on statistical averages and lots of shoots to obliterate a marine or sisters army, the marine/sister player gets the "magic hand" and passes so many saving throws that you start to believe in black magic.

Last week I fielded my mega armoured boss mob again.... just for fun and because I haven't used them for a long time. And I thought "walk over all that open field unto the IG gunline of that player that hasn't won a game in months... yeah, I think a big part of my army will be toast in minutes... a failsave plan to give him a victory again"... you guess it... his one and only lascannon squad blew at hitting anything, and the rest of the army didn't ignored my armour saves.... I think I passed about 30 or more armour saves in a row... it was when a stormtrooper squad assaulted them that I lost two nobs in mega armour thanks to a s3 powerweapon.

luchog
20-12-2006, 18:57
Pretty much a straight "agreed" across the board. But there are people that would rather have NOTHING during the long span between completely overhauled Xenos codices than Marine variants "pushing them back." Even if they aren't- because it's not at all proven they are.

No, it's obvious to anyone who has any reasonable amount of knowledge that the SM variants do push back the Xenos codices. Development resources are not unlimited, and are not expandable, it's a small zero-sum quantity. GW is a very small company, with not that many people working in their development group; a little over a hundred people. That sounds like a lot until you realize those hundred people are responsible for all three main product lines; which includes artwork for books and supplementary materials, concept design and artwork, sculpting, production design, rules and mechanics, background material and flavour text, book design and layout, and more. Dozens of people are required for each major product development, from the conceptual stage to the final release-to-production stage. That adds up quick; and when you have 20-30 people required for any major project, that means that that's that many fewer people available for other projects; and limits you to about 4, or at most 5, projects available at any one time, across the board.

So you've got a couple dozen working on the new WFB release, a dozen or so working on updates to a WFB codex, A dozen and a half working on all the new LotR stuff, and you're down to about 30 people for all your 40k projects. That's about the number of people you'd need for a single major project right there, plus maybe one smaller project. Now, considering that major projects can take many months to complete, do you alocate that group to completely rebuilding a race/army that hasn't been updated in years (Dark Eldar), with maybe a smaller team working on updating a race that is also overdue, but which maybe doesn't need as much work (Orks), or do you put the majority of them on yet another new minor Space Marine variant, and throw three or four at the way out of date stuff?

Guess which path GW takes. It's no wonder their stock prices has been on a net decline for years.

luchog
20-12-2006, 19:15
For those who possess short memories, the same thing came up in the "Why do people hate Eldar? (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38134)" thread.

The situations aren't really comperable, however; since the entire Eldar thread boiled down to only two real objections: "Starcannons of Doom" and "Seer Council from Hell". Neither of which are an issue any longer. All of the Marine issues are still there, and not looking like they're going to change anytime soon.

MrBigMr
20-12-2006, 19:26
Hmm... Eldar and Marine hate. I don't realy like either of them, but my reasons are more personal and psychological. I don't like them because of their fluff rather than their gaming style/mechanics.
Marines are just brainwashed murderers disguised as holy warriors and Eldar are just whining has beens living off of the glory days and not lifting a finger for anyone but themselves.
Other than that, I realy don't care who plays with what and if I'll win or lose.

Diomedes
20-12-2006, 19:40
Are we having one of these "lets bash Marines" threads every week now or something?

arn't we just rehashing old ground? people have problems with Marines Popularity and the fact that due to there being no Armour Save Modifiers anymore their hard to kill by most basic infantry weapons.

So as I have said before "don't hate the player, hate the GAME" level these responses at GW instead of coming on a message board and bashing the players who.

1. Arn't doing anything ilegal
2. Like to collect Marines
3. Like a good game of 40k just like everyone else

And most importantly

4. Are NOT responsible for GW's policy on what codex's are released when.

Seriously there is no convincing hardened Marine haters that they arn't being unfailry treated just like there is no convinicing hardened Marine lovers that things arn't fine as they are.

Most vets have more than one army and enjoy playing them all, I love Marines and always will, I also love my Orks and have a fondness for my old Eldar and have a Guard army which I break out when the mood takes me.

If this makes me a hated Marine player in your eyes well thats just fine, I honestly couldn't give a damn but isn't it time that on a person to person basis we stopped being snobs and looking down on someone based on what sort of plastic men he likes the best?

Seriously gamers of all people should know what its like to be victimised because of what they do. So what now some gamers see themselves as superior to others?

Its meant to be a fun hobby, bursting a blood vessel and posting hate threads serves no purpose.

If you think that your gaming experience is being ruined or a bias is being shown to Marines based on GW's rules.

Then please be pro active and go to GW and tell them your thoughts and suggest some alternative rules that may balance things out.

Whether they will listen or not is another matter but at least you tried, right now all everyone is doing is going round in circles on an internet message board.

And everytime one of these threads dies another springs up, hate is a harsh word, think about what it means...the word hate has resulted in genocides and a lot of destruction its not something to be shouted out because you army of toy soldiers lost to another army of toy soldiers that you have a dislike of.

We need to focus that this is meant to be FUN, none of us gets paid to play or gets a cash bonus when we win, if you lose to what you consider a beardy army or a cheesy player, chalk it up to experience and don't play them again.

For ever cheesy/beardy player there are a dozen players that arn't and that is regardless of what army they play.

Khaine's Messenger
20-12-2006, 19:48
The situations aren't really comperable, however

Well, no, you're right, they really aren't, in the sense of what people are going on about and what "got solved." But I meant more along the lines of Azimaith's "well, you asked" statement, which (amongst others) echoes the stance taken towards the end of the Eldar thread by other posters. Hence my misplaced optimism. I'd much rather people recognize these "problems" and attempt to solve them, which to me feels like a gaming-group level operation (since I doubt GW's going to change its operating style any time soon, despite its "responsibility" for the problem).

Captain Micha
20-12-2006, 19:50
the only reason I have such a strong dislike for space marines is simply due to the favoured son status. That and when a bunch of rines whine things get nerfed. Yet their own stuff stays the same. I'm sorry the starcannon was not -that- godly. Maybe the seer council bit was. but then again the rines have the psychic hood. Imagine being Tau vs that council army. We don't have anything that counters psychic powers. Period. know how Tau deal with something? get the bigger gun.

thats the best Tau can really do.

Oh darn the sc denies you your +3 save. so does my Ion cannon. Yeah I only get 3 of em. but you know most of everyones "special" weapons tears my armor a new one anyway. and I have +4. think about that.

Of course I have probs with players of other armies to. but a good chunk of my probs stem from abuse potentials. Not just in the rines but especially the rines. I don't think its right that one group of gamers get to whine to gw and then things get nerfed. yet the rest of us can complain till we are blue in the face about rine cheese and then the rines get yet more "cheese"

How does a Tau get past a rines awesomeness? the same way he solves the psyker problem. gets more big guns out and run like a scared little girl when the rine gets in rapid fire range why? cause things get real messy after that.

what do guard do? throw more bodies at them. bound to win eventually.
what do rines do? throw more bullets and then just wait. cause its a t4 3+ I4 vs T4 3+ I4.

BrainFireBob
20-12-2006, 20:33
Basic Marines were underpowered at the end of 3rd. They were powered up.

SPECIALIST Marines, such as Black Templars, were overpowered- they have been powered down.

Your argument only works if this is not the case. Even the few things that Marines can do in their new incarnation that are advanced as overpowered, are nowhere near as gamebreaking as the starcannon horde or the Seer Council of Doom

BrainFireBob
20-12-2006, 20:37
No, it's obvious to anyone who has any reasonable amount of knowledge that the SM variants do push back the Xenos codices. Development resources are not unlimited, and are not expandable, it's a small zero-sum quantity. GW is a very small company, with not that many people working in their development group; a little over a hundred people. That sounds like a lot until you realize those hundred people are responsible for all three main product lines; which includes artwork for books and supplementary materials, concept design and artwork, sculpting, production design, rules and mechanics, background material and flavour text, book design and layout, and more. Dozens of people are required for each major product development, from the conceptual stage to the final release-to-production stage. That adds up quick; and when you have 20-30 people required for any major project, that means that that's that many fewer people available for other projects; and limits you to about 4, or at most 5, projects available at any one time, across the board.

So you've got a couple dozen working on the new WFB release, a dozen or so working on updates to a WFB codex, A dozen and a half working on all the new LotR stuff, and you're down to about 30 people for all your 40k projects. That's about the number of people you'd need for a single major project right there, plus maybe one smaller project. Now, considering that major projects can take many months to complete, do you alocate that group to completely rebuilding a race/army that hasn't been updated in years (Dark Eldar), with maybe a smaller team working on updating a race that is also overdue, but which maybe doesn't need as much work (Orks), or do you put the majority of them on yet another new minor Space Marine variant, and throw three or four at the way out of date stuff?

Guess which path GW takes. It's no wonder their stock prices has been on a net decline for years.

Except there's no guarantee those designers would be assigned to new Xenos codices, nor does this argument acknowledge the extensive feedback process going on. I notice you did not respond to the prior post. Let me recap it:

GW is doing slow, thoroughly playtested releases. Marine variants are easy. Stick the designers on a Xenos release. Hammer out a basic variant. Playtest it. During the playtest process, stick some of those same designers pumping out a Marine variant.

As you said, limited staff. For extremely extensive in-house playtesting, which the Xenos lists need and Marine variants don't, they can only run perhaps two armies at a time.

Kahadras
20-12-2006, 21:11
I'm sorry the starcannon was not -that- godly.

I belive it was. The main thing that got me was the fact that it had no real downsides. It was just as effective vs Guardmen as Terminators, had plenty of shots, good strength, could be mounted on nearly every vehicle the Eldar possessed (plus taken in Guardian squads) and had a good range to boot.

Even the 4th ed assault cannon can't boast the same all round ability that the starcannon had. I don't want to turn this into a whole 'which is more cheesey' arguement but I do think that the Starcannon was possibly the best weapon that GW had out during 3rd ed by a long shot.

Kahadras

Getz
21-12-2006, 00:14
As you said, limited staff. For extremely extensive in-house playtesting, which the Xenos lists need and Marine variants don't, they can only run perhaps two armies at a time.

If that's the case, why are they publishing FAQs and Errata within months of the Codices coming out?

Vaktathi
21-12-2006, 00:54
The only thing I really see wrong with the current (non specialist) Marine Codex is that Assault Cannon's are a wee bit too powerful (str6 AP4 heavy 4 rending) and heavy 2 or 3 would have been plenty powerful, and basic Marines are a little too cheap pointswise (15 pts for T4 3+ WS/BS4 S4 basic troop? yes please) I personally think making them 17 or 18 points would have been better.

Overall though, every army has its quirks however, some to a larger degree than others, but for the most part, its not anything that cannot be overcome by and intelligent player. For everything you can complain about with Space Marines, you can complain about something with another army.

When it comes to people simply being sick of seeing them however, that is another matter entirely

Getz
21-12-2006, 00:59
Drop pod Boo is a bit of a problem in my mind too - There are a couple of Armies that really can't do anything about it (Tau mostly, also Guard and Eldar to a lesser extent)

In fact, I haven't found the Donkey cannon to be too much of a problem myself, although that may be just because I play guard, where it's capabilties are a bit wasted...

BrainFireBob
21-12-2006, 01:19
Yeah, but really, either drop pods OR boo aren't too bad on their own- some sort of "you can't drop a librarian" rule would have worked fine.

Slaaneshi Slave
21-12-2006, 01:37
For all the assault cannons "overpoweredness" I've yet to see it. Playing a pure Sisters of Battle force, the only things which provide my long range firepower are Exorcists (and the only things which provide anti-tank firepower in my list), and they have taking plenty of Assault Cannon rounds and lived to tell the tale.

I have never ran up against the "Assault Cannon army of Doom" though (9 speeders, 4x5 Terminators w/ 2 Assault Cannons). I don't think it would be too difficult to deal with though. Maybe its because I play Sisters though, their basic weaponry is perhaps the best in the game (with DG) for taking down Terminators, and Exorcists are great for taking down vehicle squadrons.

Vaktathi
21-12-2006, 01:56
For all the assault cannons "overpoweredness" I've yet to see it. Playing a pure Sisters of Battle force, the only things which provide my long range firepower are Exorcists (and the only things which provide anti-tank firepower in my list), and they have taking plenty of Assault Cannon rounds and lived to tell the tale.

I have never ran up against the "Assault Cannon army of Doom" though (9 speeders, 4x5 Terminators w/ 2 Assault Cannons). I don't think it would be too difficult to deal with though. Maybe its because I play Sisters though, their basic weaponry is perhaps the best in the game (with DG) for taking down Terminators, and Exorcists are great for taking down vehicle squadrons.

with SoB its less endangering with a 3+ save.

for Tau or Carapace/Grenadier & Stormtrooper IG and the like, its slaughter. If it hits, its most likely going to wound, and then ignore the save. x4 per gun and then Rending against vehicles is rape.

For the most part, SM's as a whole are fine, just the Assault Cannon could use some toning down to heavy 2 or 3.

Master Jeridian
21-12-2006, 02:09
Sisters will suffer because to be effective they have to be in transports- and vehicles, especially AV 11/10 vehicles die to Assault Cannons.

The Assault Cannons effectiveness against infantry is exactly as it should be- it is a mini-gun (like the A-10 Warthog) sending hundreds of high-powered shots spraying into a unit.

Where it becomes broken from a games perspective is in it's ability to crack open vehicles, even the strongest, with equal or better efficiency than a lascannon. So the Marine player can take either heavy bolters for infantry, lascannons for tanks.......or double that amount in Assault Cannons for both, tough choice.

The Assault Cannon should be like Divine Guidance- a roll of 6 to wound is AP 1. It should not be the weapon of choice for taking down....everything.

AngryAngel
21-12-2006, 07:49
I hate to be a voice of opposistion when the fact of the matter is marine hate..but...but. The assault cannon isn't the weapon of choice for taking down everything. The platforms that carry it are weak and easily destroyed with the range it has.

A smart player would still have some heavy bolters and lascannons. They have for one higher range. For two the hb is cheaper..the lascannon is stronger straight out..not as much of a gamble when ya fire as the assault cannon. It can also insta kill at least a T4 char or model.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
21-12-2006, 08:42
Look, GW Staff don't just make things because they love to sleep at night on giant piles of money. Yes, they often tailor their products to what will be sell well because that means people want it. But as we all saw with the ridiculous Bloodthirster head, sometimes they just make something because they want to. They are all Warhammer players, every one of them. They like the fantasy or 40K, and they create stuff to fill the world. Not just their pockets.

Leo
21-12-2006, 09:17
For those who possess short memories, the same thing came up in the "Why do people hate Eldar? (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38134)" thread. Everyone has their pet peeves about all the armies, and many are willing to put forward hypothesis they do not personally support (or even care about the ramifications of) when describing what they know to be others' feelings. The biggest thing to take from this thread (and the Eldar one) is that a lot of the problems presented are purely social ones much broader than the armylist or the simple economics of the situation. Which is why I think things like a good gaming group are important to the development of the hobby.

mhmm, not sure if that´s quite the same situation.
The Eldar player (Montserrat) posted as a response to a single comment of a person who criticized the Eldar rumours being well blown out of proportion.
Ranz on the other hand didn´t single out any comment but seems to have noticed the general hostility here on warseer.

Also notice the mighty difference in the tone of both topic starters:
Ranz just asked what the problem is.
Montserrat does one of those famous Eldar egotrips, commenting on how Eldarplayers are the best super generals who win all the time (and if they don´t, then the rules are broken and unfair), have the best tactics and the most creative approach on the game and all the hate is basically envy of those dumb non-eldar players.
That of course was incentive to respond right there which IMHO explains the large number of responses. Ranz just asks a question without any insulting and still gets jumped at by a number of better-than-yous

Greater_Good11
21-12-2006, 12:27
I don't know, Tau are a popular choice as well nowadays, in a few years time we may see "Tau hate"

I think it's because they are used by everyone, and a lot of them are ultramarines, which ticks people off, Other chapters are not hated as much in my experience

Oh c'mon, Tau are overpowered in some spots, which is why a lot of ppl collect them! That and Broadsides are you ultimate anti tank unit!

MrBigMr
21-12-2006, 13:29
I can't say about the Tau. Sure, they have good firepower, but it's not always gonna save them and even guard can kick their asses in a fist fight.
Not to forget that they have 4+ armor, so even a heavy HB, the cheapest and most common weapon of the whole Imperium (and other races have their own AP4 gear) will tear them a new one any day.
They lack special weapons for squads and have to rely on their rifles. Only battlesuits have a fully custom gear and they tend to get expensive fast. Not to forget that they'll still go down from lasfire.

spispopd
21-12-2006, 16:24
I belive it was.

I disagree about the starcannon being "godly" in the 3rd edition Eldar codex. It was a no brainer choice, that's true, but that also has something to with the other weapons being very bad compared to the starcannon (without a big enough point cost difference to make the other weapons worth using), which is why people rarely used the other weapons. I think it would have been possible to keep the starcannon at heavy 3, but still make the other weapons attractive by changing the rules and point costs of those other weapons a bit (which they did, but they also nerfed the starcannon). If the starcannon had remained as it is (3 shots, 35 points for BS 3 models), I might still have chosen the new scatter laser (4 shots, 15 points) over it sometimes. After all, it is considerably cheaper, and against some targets, such as light vehicles and models with 6+ saves or invulnerable saves, it is more powerful than the old starcannon. Against 5+ saves it is only slightly less powerful than the old starcannon, but much cheaper. At 25 points and d6 shots it was not a really viable choice compared to the old starcannon, but the new scatter laser might be.


The main thing that got me was the fact that it had no real downsides. It was just as effective vs Guardmen as Terminators, had plenty of shots, good strength, could be mounted on nearly every vehicle the Eldar possessed (plus taken in Guardian squads) and had a good range to boot.


It wasn't actually as effective versus Terminators as Guardsmen, as the Termies still got their 5+ invulnerable save. I just liked to point that out, although is not really relevant - I do agree that the starcannon was too good against Terminators. That's the problem with all plasma weapons. By terms of game balance, it would have probably been better to make starcannons (and all other plasma weapons, while we're at it) AP3, but of course, then it would have been against the fluff.

As for downsides, I think that the old starcannon did have some. It was rather expensive. 35 points or more with BS3, and 45 points with BS4. Not many armies have heavy weapons that are that expensive (at least BS3 ones). While it could, of course, take out Tyranid Gaunts or IG Guardsmen, that was not a very good investment for the points, as those targets are cheap and expendable. It would have been better to use some cheaper, less powerful weapons to take out those cheap targets, rather than waste expensive AP2 shots on them.

The problem was that in the old codex the point cost difference between the starcannon and the other heavy weapons was not big enough (I believe that the cost of the starcannon was about right, but the other weapons were overpriced), and the scatter laser wasn't reliable enough. However, I'd much rather take the new, cheapened and improved scatter laser against Guard or Dark Eldar than the old starcannon. Even against Marines, I might consider taking the new scatter laser over the old starcannon, especially if I was playing in Cityfight, where 4+ saves are frequently available. In that situation both of the weapons are pretty equal against Marine infantry, but the scatter laser has advantages against vehicles and is 20 points cheaper.



Even the 4th ed assault cannon can't boast the same all round ability that the starcannon had. I don't want to turn this into a whole 'which is more cheesey' arguement but I do think that the Starcannon was possibly the best weapon that GW had out during 3rd ed by a long shot.

Kahadras

I strongly disagree about this. The new assault cannon is a lot more versatile than the old starcannon. Unlike the old starcannon, the assault cannon can actually damage AV13+ vehicles. The starcannon couldn't even penetrate AV12 (only glance). The assault cannon is also considerably better against lighter vehicles, because it has more shots and is generally fired at BS4, while the starcannon was mostly at BS3. Against models with 4+ or worse saves the assault cannon is also clearly better, because of more shots and better BS. Against MEQs a BS3 old starcannon is pretty much equal to a BS4 old assault cannon, if you do the math. The only targets against whom the old starcannon was better were models with 2+ saves, but even then it depends on the toughness of the target - against especially tough opponents AC is better again because of its abililty to ignore the to wound roll with rending. I once did the math for all possible situations, and there are only a few situations where the starcannon is better than the assault cannon.

Of course, the starcannon has better range than an assault cannon and was available to more units, so it can still be argued which of the two weapons was ultimately more useful. However, in terms of destructive power and versatility the assault cannon is clearly better than the old starcannon - there's no question about it. I don't want an argument, but if I see a statement which is clearly false, I feel almost compelled to correct it - I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

While this may seem like I'm trying to turn this into one of the endless off topic assault cannon fights we're having every week, this is not really the case. In fact, I don't think that what I've just written is completely off-topic, because it does have something to do with what I said in my previous (extra long) reply to this thread. In that post I explained why it is impossible to have the game balanced both in tournaments and one-off games if too many players play the same type of army. In fact, the example of the old starcannon explains pretty clearly what I was trying to tell in my previous reply, which I hope was more on topic.

It may very well be that the old starcannon (and especially the "starcannon army of doom") was too powerful IN TOURNAMENT ENVIRONMENT. The starcannon really shined against MEQs, because in the MEQ lists models generally tend to be more expensive than in other lists. This means that each kill that you made against MEQs was worth more than against IG or Tyranids, for example, and generally accounted for a bigger percentage of the total models in the army.

The MEQ lists in tournaments were generally not tooled up against these "starcannon armies of death" but against other MEQ lists. When army A is tooled against army B, but army B is also tooled up against army B (and therefore not army A), army A should have an advantage, if we assume that the armies are balanced against each other in one-off games, where either none or both of the players have tooled up against the other. In my opinion, the 3rd edition Eldar were probably the only non-MEQ list that could have an equal chance of winning against Marines in ONE-off games, where the Marine player also gets to tool up against his opponent. All of the rest non-MEQ armies were at a disadvantage against Marines in one-off games. Being equal to Marines in one-off games automatically meant that Eldar had the advantage in tournaments.

My point is that the 3rd edition Eldar weren't actually too good at killing MEQs. Instead, all other non-MEQ lists were TOO WEAK at killing MEQs! These statements only apply if we're talking about one-off games, where the MEQ player also has the ability to tool up against his opponent. In tournaments, the Eldar and the starcannons were too good, but that's a completely different situation, as I've explained in better detail in my previous reply to this thread. In one-off games, the starcannon army of death was NOT impossible to beat, even with MEQs. If you knew what to expect and tooled up and based your tactics solely to fight that army type (the starcannon army of doom), it wasnt' even very difficult to win - especially when using 4th edition Marines. The reason that starcannon armies won so many tournaments is that they usually got to fight against their preferred type of opponent - a MEQ list that is not tooled up against them. I really don't think that starcannon lists would have won many tournaments if all they fought against were GEQ lists that were especially designed to kill them.

Thanks to everybody for reading. I don't want to start an argument, but a good, civil discussion is always welcome. I just liked to share my opinions and thoughts with you. Remember: the main point of this reply is not whether assault cannons or starcannons are too good or too bad. It is this: It's not possible to make the game balanced both in tournaments and one-off games at the same time, if one army type is played much more than the others. That's what I was trying to tell in my previous reply, but perhaps this example made it a little bit easier to understand. At least that's what I hope. :)

Slaaneshi Slave
21-12-2006, 16:36
Don't hate the armies, hate the game! It's soul destroying!

DoctorTom
21-12-2006, 18:52
I hate to be a voice of opposistion when the fact of the matter is marine hate..but...but. The assault cannon isn't the weapon of choice for taking down everything. The platforms that carry it are weak and easily destroyed with the range it has.

I wouldn't say that terminators are weak and easily destroyed. For that matter, the platforms you're talking about are the dread and the landspeeder. If you keep the landspeeder going so it gets the skimmers moving fast rule it's much harder to take them out. A dread has better armor and is harder to take out - will need rending or at least S6 weapons. Also, a dread can be dropped in a drop pod, easily putting him in range to shoot things with the assault cannon. For that matter, the terminators can drop pod or teleport in, putting them in shooting range. Also, don't forget that units like the landspeeders can move fast and take advantage of cover to hide until they're ready to shoot, and will probably take out most or all of what they're shooting at.


A smart player would still have some heavy bolters and lascannons. They have for one higher range. For two the hb is cheaper..the lascannon is stronger straight out..not as much of a gamble when ya fire as the assault cannon. It can also insta kill at least a T4 char or model.

I'd agree you need a mix of the weapons. The lascannon's definitely for tank hunting (or sniping multiwound characters), though, while the assault cannon does a good job at both tanks and infantry. You'd probably want things that you can fire to help cover the units that are moving closer with assault cannons.

Khaine's Messenger
21-12-2006, 21:30
Ranz just asks a question without any insulting and still gets jumped at by a number of better-than-yous

I don't care if the original poster was a saint or a sinner, a buffon or a hawking. They still asked, and people answered, and the quality of those answers are irrelevant to the overall thrust of my point. Which is that a lot of the "problems" (eventually solved or not) seem to be social/gameplay issues that are best mediated by gaming groups. Hence,


Well, no, you're right, they really aren't, in the sense of what people are going on about and what "got solved." But I meant more along the lines of Azimaith's "well, you asked" statement, which (amongst others) echoes the stance taken towards the end of the Eldar thread by other posters. Hence my misplaced optimism. I'd much rather people recognize these "problems" and attempt to solve them, which to me feels like a gaming-group level operation (since I doubt GW's going to change its operating style any time soon, despite its "responsibility" for the problem).

darkprincewilson
21-12-2006, 21:32
I used to be a marine hater until I decided to change my view of 40K.

Once I decided that 40K was a story about the space marines with everyone else in supporting roles, that made it OK for me.

While I will never play a space marine army, I have no problem with them.

Kahadras
21-12-2006, 21:45
It wasn't actually as effective versus Terminators as Guardsmen, as the Termies still got their 5+ invulnerable save. I just liked to point that out, although is not really relevant - I do agree that the starcannon was too good against Terminators.

Granted but the Terminator does cost as much as half a squad of Guardsmen :(


I strongly disagree about this. The new assault cannon is a lot more versatile than the old starcannon. Unlike the old starcannon, the assault cannon can actually damage AV13+ vehicles. The starcannon couldn't even penetrate AV12 (only glance). The assault cannon is also considerably better against lighter vehicles, because it has more shots and is generally fired at BS4, while the starcannon was mostly at BS3. Against models with 4+ or worse saves the assault cannon is also clearly better, because of more shots and better BS. Against MEQs a BS3 old starcannon is pretty much equal to a BS4 old assault cannon, if you do the math. The only targets against whom the old starcannon was better were models with 2+ saves, but even then it depends on the toughness of the target - against especially tough opponents AC is better again because of its abililty to ignore the to wound roll with rending. I once did the math for all possible situations, and there are only a few situations where the starcannon is better than the assault cannon.

The whole thing with rending though is that you need that 6. Yes you can rend a Land raider to death or you can plink away at it all game doing nothing.
Also hitting wasn't really a problem either as far as I could see. Guide, twin linked (on Wave Serpent), and BS 4 stuff (Black Guardians and Wraithlords) usualy ment that you could get off quite a lot of very accurate shooting.


Of course, the starcannon has better range than an assault cannon and was available to more units, so it can still be argued which of the two weapons was ultimately more useful. However, in terms of destructive power and versatility the assault cannon is clearly better than the old starcannon - there's no question about it. I don't want an argument, but if I see a statement which is clearly false, I feel almost compelled to correct it - I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

The thing is though that it's not just the weapon but also what it is mounted on at the end of the day which is important. The 3rd ed Starcannon could go in basic infantry units, on fast attack choices, on transports, on tanks, on walkers and more over these were good solid units ( BS4 Wraithlord, Tricked out Falcon, Twin linked on a Wave Serpent etc) .

Comparing this to the assault cannon which is mounted on..

1. Terminators - Expencive and fragile in a system which is now dominated by plasma guns, lazcannon and power fists.

2. Landspeeders - Fast but horribly fragile. They also suffer from people knowing how dangerous they are and the fact that the assault cannon has a poor range means they have to get close to the enemy (not a good thing). The Vyper (Eldar equivalent) can hang back much futher.

3. Dreadnought - Slow and vunerable to enemy anti tank firepower. Can be drop podded but forces cost up a lot.

4. LR Crusader - Again expencive

5. Baal predator - Limited access (BA only)

At the end of the day maybe the Starcannon wasn't the most uber weapon ever but I always feel that the 4th ed assault cannon is always made to look better than it is.

I feel that there are many external factors that impact on the Starcannon and the Assault cannon and it's these 'external factors' rather than a direct stat comparison which makes the Starcannon better IMHO.

Kahadras

spispopd
22-12-2006, 11:22
Granted but the Terminator does cost as much as half a squad of Guardsmen :(


That is true, and that's exactly why I said that plasma is too good against Terminators. It often feels like a 2+ save is not a really great upgrade over a 3+ save. I think that there are too many AP2 weapons and too few AP3 weapons in 40k. Power weapons and chopppas don't care whether your save is 2+ or 3+. Most things that can kill Marines easily kill Terminators almost as easily. I think that a 40 point Terminator should be considerably harder to kill than a 15 point Marine. I think that in the current 40k basic Marines are too hard to kill, but Terminators are too easy to kill.




The whole thing with rending though is that you need that 6. Yes you can rend a Land raider to death or you can plink away at it all game doing nothing.


That applies to all weapons, though - if you roll poorly, your guns won't do anything to the enemy. Even a railgun can fail to kill a Grot if you roll a 1 to wound. Note that even a lascannon needs a 6 to penetrate a Land Raider (a 5 will only glance). The difference is that the lascannon only has one shot, while the assault cannon has 4. Statistically the assault cannon is better against Rand Raiders (and pretty much all other vehicles, too) than a lascannon. Of course, range does matter, so this doesn't automatically mean that the assault cannon is the better of the two weapons. But one thing is sure: the assault cannon IS very effective against vehicles if you get in range. Of course, it is possible to roll poorly, but with 4 shots it's not too hard to roll a 6 - especially if you have more than one assault cannon firing.



Also hitting wasn't really a problem either as far as I could see. Guide, twin linked (on Wave Serpent), and BS 4 stuff (Black Guardians and Wraithlords) usualy ment that you could get off quite a lot of very accurate shooting.


You could only Guide a maximum of two units per turn, though. Also, taking two Farseers would cost quite a lot of points, which means that you have less points to spend on starcannons. Serpents are quite expensive and non-scoring, and you won't be able to shoot its guns if you want to transport the unit it's carrying at maximum speed. I agree that twin-linked starcannons were good, though, and the upgrade from twin-linked shuriken cannons should definitely have been more expensive. Most people gave Wraithlords bright lances istead of starcannons, because they want to maximize their chances to hit with that one shot weapon. Ulthwe was definitely broken in the old codex, though. The Seer Council was too powerful, and the Black Guardian upgrade should have had a point cost increase with it. The heavy weapon prices for Black Guardians should also have been more expensive due to their better BS. It should be noted, though, that even if a starcannon is fired at BS4, an assault cannon is still better against many target types.




2. Landspeeders - Fast but horribly fragile. They also suffer from people knowing how dangerous they are and the fact that the assault cannon has a poor range means they have to get close to the enemy (not a good thing). The Vyper (Eldar equivalent) can hang back much futher.


I think that Land Speeders are the most annoying of the assault cannon wielding units. They have the speed to get in range to use it, and also have another heavy weapon to boot. You have to get close to the enemy, sure, but if you fire 12 assault cannon shots and 9 heavy bolter shots (from a full squadron) at something, there probably won't be much to shoot back! The Land Speeder may be pretty fragile, but there's still only a 2/6 chance to die from a glancing hit, which is all they will be taking. With their mobility and firepower it is possibly to minimize the amount of fire they take in return. If you want to compare them to Vypers, you have to remember that Vypers are open topped, which makes them easier to kill, and have BS3.

Then a few words about Terminators. It may be argued that the assault cannon was needed to turn them into an attractive choice, because not many people used them previously. Still, it annoys me that every Terminator squad I see is 5 men (or 6 at max), with two assault cannons. The overpoweredness of the AC means that the other weapon options are not really worth taking. It should definitely have been more expensive, and probably restricted to one per squad (another model could still take a heavy flamer or a cyclone).



At the end of the day maybe the Starcannon wasn't the most uber weapon ever but I always feel that the 4th ed assault cannon is always made to look better than it is.


Well, I probably agree that the assault cannon really isn't THAT bad. Still, I think that it's too powerful and should be somehow changed when they update the codex.



I feel that there are many external factors that impact on the Starcannon and the Assault cannon and it's these 'external factors' rather than a direct stat comparison which makes the Starcannon better IMHO.

Kahadras

Fair enough. However, even if you do think that starcannon was the better weapon against MEQs, would you still agree that it's not the better weapon against all armies? For example, the starcannon wasn't very effective against IG. Against their infantry it's overkill, and it can't penetrate the armour of their tanks unless you get to fire at the rear armour (even at side armour the starcannon could only glance a Russ). The assault cannon, on the other hand, kills IG infantry a lot faster than a starcannon and can also take out their tanks relatively easily.

Captain Micha
22-12-2006, 15:08
proof the assualt cannon is too good.

makes the Tau player cry cause he does not have anything as good.

and the whole point of the tau is ranged warfare at its best.

Ianos
22-12-2006, 16:09
Actually there is also nothing else that powerful in the entire marine arsenal too. The assault cannon is more effective versous all targets (even more than a melta vs. high AV tanks!: multimelta at 12" has 49.5% to pen and assault cannon has at 24" 36.5% to pen and not considering glancing...) and costs less than almost all heavy weapons! How could that ever be balanced?

electricblooz
22-12-2006, 16:23
proof the assualt cannon is too good.

makes the Tau player cry cause he does not have anything as good.

and the whole point of the tau is ranged warfare at its best.

Proof? no, maybe the Tau player just has overdeveloped sense of emotion

:rolleyes:

Midknightwraith
22-12-2006, 17:50
Actually there is also nothing else that powerful in the entire marine arsenal too. The assault cannon is more effective versous all targets (even more than a melta vs. high AV tanks!: multimelta at 12" has 49.5% to pen and assault cannon has at 24" 36.5% to pen and not considering glancing...) and costs less than almost all heavy weapons! How could that ever be balanced?

I would like to correct the math here a bit. The Assault Cannon is in fact not as good against lighter vehicles as a LasCannon or Missle Launcher. Specifically, Armor value 11. Also remember the biggest problem with LasCannons is getting them to hit, and there are many Marine platforms that currently have T-L LasCannons, which deals with their worst problems.

The biggest unbalancing factor for the Assault Cannon is the High ROF, combined with the rending rules for shooting. Because so much of the anti-infantry capability is wrapped up in the to hit roll for a rending weapon. Three ACs are pretty much guaranteed to kill 2 infantry of any type, plus have 10 more chances to kill the rest with a high S, plus ignore most infantry armor in the game, even without rending. I don't think anybody would be complaining about the AC if it was Hvy2, Rending and cost 15 instead of 20 pts, Or if it was AP6 or AP- in its current form. Combined with the fact that the most popular platform comes with another high ROF weapon that is very good at Anti-Infantry. It all makes the Assault Cannon the target of a lot of bad sentiment.

BTW: Totally agree that Terminators are either, way over costed or under powered with out the Assault Cannons, the problem is that the change boosted the power of other units that were already quite good, also. As stated, it is really the LandSpeeder with AC/HB combo that is cheap, fast, and very powerful that draws all the ire and comments of "cheeze". If the upgrade to the tornado was 50 pts instead of 30 it might also fix the problem.

eldaran
22-12-2006, 18:16
people keep complaining about only one real reason why SMs are overpowered: assault cannons. I play Marines, with the typical 5-man Termie squad with 2 assault cannons, yet the best weapon in my army is the missile launcher, since it does far more damage than both assault cannon over the game.

(BTW: you can look at statistics 'til the cows come home, yet it won't make a difference or affact any game)

Overall, the marines are a balanced list, especially bearing in mind that virtually every army in the game has anti-marine guns (Vespids, starcannon, battlecannon...) Also, a Termehas a BS of 4 with his assault cannon, but he would cost 60 pints and be taken out by a 36-point guard BS3 lascannon team.

hiveminion
22-12-2006, 19:40
Assault Cannons a game winner? Cheesy? Of course, it's a 4-shot, strength 6 gun that Rends, but it's just that.

With a 24" range it is likely to be unable to shoot much. Once you're in range, the enemy is too, and after a 2nd turn within charge range too.

AP4 is feared by anything without power armour or similar protection. Fortunately most soldiers with flimsy armour are in large numbers (Nids, Orks, IG), have long-range punch of their own (Tau) or are manouevrable enough to avoid getting shot at too many times ((Dark)Eldar).

Rending needs a 6 to work, and that may sometimes work wonders but more often it will not. Also, against vehicles, it first needs to hit and THEN needs a 6 on the AP chart, so chances there are even slimmer.
The fact that Rending ignores the to wound roll is a formality against T4 or worse targets, and the fact it ignores saves only works against something with a 3+ or 2+ save and they get enough protection from their armour to casually ignore the other shots (unless I'm rolling the dice...)

Also, AC-heavy armies are hyper-specialised, as they need to include a lot of Terminators, reducing their numbers, Land Speeder Tornadoes, which sport a fantastic armour value of 10, Dreadnoughts (erm...no comment) and/or Land Raider Crusaders, further reducing the number of other troops you'll face. This means your opponent's entire battle plan is about those guns making mincepie out of your troops. If he succeeds, his tactics were better than yours.
So, instead of going "OMG those Assault Cannons are :cheese: ! Wtf I *hate* marines!", try working out a plan to defeat those AC toting MEQ!

rickie8437
22-12-2006, 19:53
i love marines, have done since RT days.
but i do think gw have put them to one side and powerd up the other dex's, let me explain

i have been in the hobby for about 14 years
2nd marines rocked they did they were nails

now adays things are a lot diffrent take the tau shoot and move away in assault phase that not rite why cant every one do that

ok ok i here you say im all for marines i am they made this hobby what it is
every book, artwork, painting comp there allways there why i here you ask beacuse 12 year old kid love kick **** soldiers with a big gun

i would just like to see more fluff of every other dex but also about the other chapters, im a imperical fist player but there is hardly any fluff on them because the ultr smurfs over shadow them

Vaktathi
22-12-2006, 20:06
people keep complaining about only one real reason why SMs are overpowered: assault cannons. I play Marines, with the typical 5-man Termie squad with 2 assault cannons, yet the best weapon in my army is the missile launcher, since it does far more damage than both assault cannon over the game.

(BTW: you can look at statistics 'til the cows come home, yet it won't make a difference or affact any game)

Overall, the marines are a balanced list, especially bearing in mind that virtually every army in the game has anti-marine guns (Vespids, starcannon, battlecannon...) Also, a Termehas a BS of 4 with his assault cannon, but he would cost 60 pints and be taken out by a 36-point guard BS3 lascannon team.


The statistics will make a difference at some point, its why they exist, if you looked at every game of 40k played, calculated statistics would probably be very near what you see. in an individual game however, this is not true, but should still have a central tendencay with the theoretical stats, even if it is just passing.

I agree that Termies are way too expensive for what they are considering the amount of AP2 weaopons available (which has essentially been made mandatory by plethora of high save infantry around, otherwise some armies wouldnt have a chance). If termies were 2+/4+ or 2+/3+ instead of 2+/5+ I could see having the horrendous cost that they have, but as such they currently cost too much.

Also, you need not take a 36pt lascannon team to kill a termie, a 16pt guardsmen with a plasmagun suffices :D

El_Phen
22-12-2006, 20:16
I don't know, Tau are a popular choice as well nowadays, in a few years time we may see "Tau hate"

Amen brother!

Let us avert our attention from Marines and place it on what truly deserves our hate. Tau. I have been called stupid and petty for hating them, even though only one guy in my gaming group plays them (though he hasn't done so in about 6-8 months). But never let this distract from the fact that, bar one/two 40k in 40 minutes games with Orks, I've been smited every time I've played against them.

The Tau, gentlemen. They are the REAL enemy. Strutting about in floaty tank with extra-shooty guns and that bloody ForgeWorld Manta thingy. Greater good my bum!;)

MrBigMr
22-12-2006, 20:58
Aaaw, but the Tau are so cute.
http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/juuso007/Pics/FEMTAU.JPG

hiveminion
22-12-2006, 21:01
Yes, she looks really cute untill her frogface comes within 3" of yours and she clamps your hands together with those hoops, pulls that knife out of her right heel pocket, stabs it through your throat and runs away with your wallet...all for the Greater Good;)

eldaran
22-12-2006, 21:17
The statistics will make a difference at some point, its why they exist, if you looked at every game of 40k played, calculated statistics would probably be very near what you see. in an individual game however, this is not true, but should still have a central tendencay with the theoretical stats, even if it is just passing.

Also, you need not take a 36pt lascannon team to kill a termie, a 16pt guardsmen with a plasmagun suffices :D

1. there is a loathing at my local for mathhammer, and it is starting to manifest in me (Sorry)

2. I know, bad example, but the same point holds true- afar cheaper model/models can kill terminators. I mean, even lasguns can kill termies (which is fun, but i prefer demolisher cannoning them)

Nebëhr Gudahtt
22-12-2006, 21:24
Marines aren't hated because they are overpowered, cheesy or hard to beat. They are hated because they are EVERYWHERE! Never mind the assault cannon, perhaps a little overpowered, but not exactly warranting an errata.

MrBigMr
22-12-2006, 23:00
Yes, she looks really cute untill her frogface comes within 3" of yours and she clamps your hands together with those hoops, pulls that knife out of her right heel pocket, stabs it through your throat and runs away with your wallet...all for the Greater Good;)
Hah, joke's on her. I'm broke as a church rat.

Misanthrope
23-12-2006, 07:44
That is true, and that's exactly why I said that plasma is too good against Terminators. It often feels like a 2+ save is not a really great upgrade over a 3+ save. I think that there are too many AP2 weapons and too few AP3 weapons in 40k.

18 different AP2 weapons, 13 AP3 weapons

Oddly, every single AP3 weapon except for Krak Missile is not fielded by Imperium...


And I heartily agree. Terminators just aren't worth their massive points simply because pretty much anything that can kill Power Armour can kill Terminator armour... basically you're paying 3 x the points for armour that's only better against small-arms fire (which isn't really a problem).

Vaktathi
23-12-2006, 08:03
1. there is a loathing at my local for mathhammer, and it is starting to manifest in me (Sorry)

2. I know, bad example, but the same point holds true- afar cheaper model/models can kill terminators. I mean, even lasguns can kill termies (which is fun, but i prefer demolisher cannoning them)

demolisher cannoning is ALWAYS hawt.

AngryAngel
23-12-2006, 08:14
@Dr Tom, those platforms get creamed that the assault cannon is on whenever they come out for me. In a plasma world terms aren't the bee's knee's. Dreads can live forever or die to a lucky shot, just like any other tank they are a gamble..just like shooting the assault cannon. Landspeeders yeah, they can survive but your living on a prayer. Yeah they can only get glanced, but 4 rolls on that table screw it.

Stunned ok next turn its done. Weapon destroyed ok no more assault cannon. Immobilized its dead. Destroyed its destroyed. 4 out of 6 options being so bad strikes me as bad. Yeah you have a chance to get into range for one promised salvo. Probably and as Khadras (sorry if I spelled that wrong) said you need to get 6's. I don't know how many 6's you always roll when ya do stuff, I don't roll that many all the time.

For instance was teaching a friend to play just this week, I told him the assault cannon was considerd the most broken, firece weapon 40k has ever seen. He laughed at me because in the 4 games he played he managed to roll..out of shooting alot 5 rending shots to infantry and one to a vehicle. Out of using 5 in his army list each game. Now for such an amazing, crazy super gun, thats not very impressive. That wasn't in each game that was totaled from all games.

So yeah, master of all, hardly. Amazing ? I'd say not. You can say statistically this or that..life is made up of things that shouldn't happen but yet still do. What should happen isn't nearly as important as what will..and does happen. If you'll rely just on the assault cannon your an idiot. The gun is perhaps the most over hyped thing in 40k right now. Your all right it is a no brainer choice because if you rely on it, instead of using balanced weapons..you have no brain.

Thanks for the reply though Dr Tom. Glad you agree that you need a blanced use of weapons. If more people did that we wouldn't even need to debate the issue of the assault cannon. Good, yes ? Too good, no.

rickie8437
23-12-2006, 12:32
i have to agree with you on that one, the ac is not so great
good but not great

i have a 2000pt termin army for the imperical fists and i has a woppign 15 ac

and its alway the strom bolters and sniper rifles fromt he scouts that win the day

Getz
23-12-2006, 12:44
18 different AP2 weapons, 13 AP3 weapons

Oddly, every single AP3 weapon except for Krak Missile is not fielded by Imperium...


What about Battle Cannons and Earthshaker Cannons? Both AP3, both fielded by the Imperium...

eldaran
23-12-2006, 12:53
the main problem, which has been stated and ignored, is that people hate marines because loads of people play them, and they take an ok, short-ranged weapon as an example, as well as several other arguments theat don't hold water, to justify this dislike to other people. Trust me, i have had a lot of stick for being a marines player, and every time, they havent been able to come up with a better argument than "Everybody plays them"

Why don't people start moaning about Space Wolves long fangs, the fact that tau can have 24 BS5 shots coming from one unit that moves 12 inches, or that IG can spend 300 points on 3 S9 Rng 120" AP3 ordnance blasts a turn?

I can go on...

Ps: Tank hunting BS4 Autocannons in Iron Warriors

Getz
23-12-2006, 13:09
the main problem, which has been stated and ignored, is that people hate marines because loads of people play them, and they take an ok, short-ranged weapon as an example, as well as several other arguments theat don't hold water, to justify this dislike to other people. Trust me, i have had a lot of stick for being a marines player, and every time, they havent been able to come up with a better argument than "Everybody plays them"

It's hardly an ignored point - aside from this little side discussion about Assualt Cannons the main thrust of the thread is "Marine Haters" like me saying that we don't actually hate them, we're just sick of their over exposure. As for complaining that we only ever say "Everybody plays them," why should we come up with a better argument? It's a perfectly valid reason to be fed up with something - if you were force fed chocolate morning, noon and night, it wouldn't be long before you were sick of the smell of it. For those of us who want variety in our tabletop experience, GW's over emphasis on Marines is killing the diversity of the game.


Why don't people start moaning about Space Wolves long fangs, the fact that tau can have 24 BS5 shots coming from one unit that moves 12 inches, or that IG can spend 300 points on 3 S9 Rng 120" AP3 ordnance blasts a turn?


Firstly, three direct Firing Bassilisks are hardly a difficult problem to solve, even if you haven't taken much dedicated anti-tank - they have paper thin armour and are costed accordingly.

Secondly, if you want me to moan about Long Fangs, I will - but since when have Space Wolves been something other than just another Space Marine variant...

Finally, if you want 24 BS5 Pulse shots that can move 12 inches from Tau, I assume you're talking about Fish of Fury... Well - that cost a whole tone of points to by the units (including the markerlights somewhere else in your arm for that BS5 you're so scared of) and it's effectiveness is still limted as Tau fold like a deckhair the moment they get counter charged. Tau are hardly an army that can be played on autopilot, in fact I would say that of the armies I own, they are the one that requires the most thought to play effectively as you have to dance around in a very narrow area where you can apply your firepower most effectively whilst still being safe from assault...

That said, I'm still not sure what exactly this has to do with our chief complaint with MArines, that being that they are everywhere.

bratbag
23-12-2006, 15:06
Because they are bland. Bland bland bland bland bland.

Ah, look marines.
Ah, marines that get drunk
Woo marines that use BP+CCW
Emo Vampire marines, yay
Spiky mutant marines
Cross-dressing marines that are into torture...kinky
GASP!-Another DIY marine chapter that 'stands alone'

And yet they all feel the same way to play against.They all fall to the same tactics and when you see the same army for the umpteenth time painted a different colour (including lazy plastic grey) you go about thrashing it the same old way.

Of course, don't forget the special rules and basic stats that nearly remove moral and terrain considerations from the game (for your opponent, any way).

I don't hate marine army's, hate implies a passion of some sort. I dont hate marine gamers. If marines are the only force they use then i pity them for spending all that cash on an army that is so limiting in how much of the game it allows you to experiance.

I loath marine.I loose all interest when i see that first power armoured monkey un-packed and put on the table.

Starchild
23-12-2006, 19:00
Because they are bland. Bland bland bland bland bland.Agreed. I really respect Marine players who take the time to deck out their armies with all the banners, insignia, add-ons, etc. (I happen to be one of them) but there are far too many SM armies that never get past the base-coat stage.

From an outside perspective someone might assume that the 40k universe is filled with Space Marines. In the beginning this was not so. Rogue Trader had a lot of mystery to it. Reading the old book there is the distinct feeling that mankind controls barely 20% of the galaxy, while the rest is infested with aliens and horrors beyond comprehension.

I think GW needs to go back to that mindset with the game. Hopefully the 40k roleplaying game will bring back some of the old flavour. SMs only compose a tiny fraction in a galaxy teeming with trillions of humans and other intelligent species.

It would be nice to see human armies that aren't SM, IG, or Chaos. The Imperium is not the sole governing force for all humans; there are countless other principalities and worlds beyond the reach of the Astronomican, and renegade humans do not necessarily have to be Chaotic, they could be pirates, smugglers, etc.

DoctorTom
23-12-2006, 20:28
@Dr Tom, those platforms get creamed that the assault cannon is on whenever they come out for me. In a plasma world terms aren't the bee's knee's.

I find that ironic since I don't live in a plasma world. There's actually not a lot of SM players where I'm at, and one of the main SM players doesn't like plasma because his guys always get a backfire and die. :)


Stunned ok next turn its done. Weapon destroyed ok no more assault cannon. Immobilized its dead. Destroyed its destroyed. 4 out of 6 options being so bad strikes me as bad. Yeah you have a chance to get into range for one promised salvo. Probably and as Khadras (sorry if I spelled that wrong) said you need to get 6's. I don't know how many 6's you always roll when ya do stuff, I don't roll that many all the time.

If you had 3 Landspeeders with Assault Cannons firing in one turn, you could expect 2 rending shots and 6 others that hit. Now that's not overpowering by itself, but if someone fills up and takes 9 landspeeders, that's a whole lot of rending hits being thrown out, not to mention lots of targets. They'll probably want to shoot some of the landspeeders but won't be able to get all, especially if you have something else that can worry them (Predator, Termies, etc). I really think it's the all-assault cannon armies that caused the distaste for the weapon, just like overuse of starcannons in the previous eldar codex (due to only 2 decent heavy weapon options) caused a lot of starcannon hate amongst marine players. Of course, the assault cannon got a boost with their latest codex revision, while the starcannon got nerfed, so I can see where some of the hate comes from.



If you'll rely just on the assault cannon your an idiot. The gun is perhaps the most over hyped thing in 40k right now.

I don't know if it's the most overhyped....Tau railguns could be a serious contender for that spot.


Thanks for the reply though Dr Tom. Glad you agree that you need a blanced use of weapons. If more people did that we wouldn't even need to debate the issue of the assault cannon. Good, yes ? Too good, no.

Usually you want some type of balance and don't want to rely on one weapon for everything in any army (except maybe an all-battle cannon or all-earthshaker army if you're playing different flavors of Armored Company :D , and probably not even then).

stompzilla
23-12-2006, 21:13
Agreed. I really respect Marine players who take the time to deck out their armies with all the banners, insignia, add-ons, etc. (I happen to be one of them) but there are far too many SM armies that never get past the base-coat stage.

Not everyone gets the same from doing this as you though. Everyone gets something different from the hobby. I know some folk who are consumate gamers but see painting as a chore and doslike it intensly. Remember it's THE hobby not YOUR hobby.



From an outside perspective someone might assume that the 40k universe is filled with Space Marines. In the beginning this was not so. Rogue Trader had a lot of mystery to it. Reading the old book there is the distinct feeling that mankind controls barely 20% of the galaxy, while the rest is infested with aliens and horrors beyond comprehension.

I think GW needs to go back to that mindset with the game. Hopefully the 40k roleplaying game will bring back some of the old flavour. SMs only compose a tiny fraction in a galaxy teeming with trillions of humans and other intelligent species.

It would be nice to see human armies that aren't SM, IG, or Chaos. The Imperium is not the sole governing force for all humans; there are countless other principalities and worlds beyond the reach of the Astronomican, and renegade humans do not necessarily have to be Chaotic, they could be pirates, smugglers, etc.

Well there is plenty of wiggle room in the various codices for these to be created. All people need is a bit of creativity and Voila. I have a Tau urban warfare auxillery detachment at home made from the guard codex and i've seen plenty of other much more imaginative armies. At this year's GT was an arbites army complete with flashing blue and red lights - based on the guard dex, and a friend of mine has a genestealer cult army based on the witch hunter's codex.

To cut a long rant short, GW just give you the outline and the tools to work with. The rest is down to the individual.

eldaran
23-12-2006, 21:28
Firstly, are we talking about purely loyalist marines, or are we also talking about Chaos Marines? I mean, this may just be my area, but there are actually more chaos players than Marines players, and a lot of them also moan about how there isn't enough variety, neglecting to notice that the average army is Chaos.

Secondly, i agree that a lot of Space Marines armies are played by new players, and so they are: played inexperiencedly (is that a word)/badly painted/badly detailed/Ultramarines*. Therefore people will have a peeve with playing Marines, since they expect it to be a boring game. However, it is wrong that they tar all marine armies with the same brush, saying that they hate all marines armies, instead of saying that they hate SOME marines armies.

A way to spice it up is to use allies. A friend uses grey knights in his marines army, and they provide some real close combat muscle (although he was really unfortunate in scattering a melta torpedo strike onto his big grey knights squad, killing enough of his own to force a failed leadership test which sent them off the table-that was funny)

PS: long fangs are painful: especially if armed with plasma cannon-but space wolves are overpowered anyway.

*don't have a problem with Ultramarines themselves, i just wish people wou;d go for a chapter other than Ultramarines when they start a marines army, like Imperial fists, or even coming up with their own Chapter.

eldaran
23-12-2006, 21:32
Firstly, three direct Firing Bassilisks are hardly a difficult problem to solve, even if you haven't taken much dedicated anti-tank - they have paper thin armour and are costed accordingly.

You can still give them crew compartments, and i was talking basic costs. For my Iron Warriors army, i give it indirect fire mutated hull and daemonic posssession, as well as a crew compartment (nodbody's managed to destroy it yet, but that may be because i ordnance anything that looks as if it might be getting too close for comfort)

Nebëhr Gudahtt
24-12-2006, 01:20
Doesn't really matter if it's Chaos or loyalist Marines. More or less same statline, some bloke with a powerfist, a plasma gun and some bolters, same near-immunity to morale. The one in a million super elite soldiers still outnumber the million in a million average soldiers by a large margin.

bertcom1
24-12-2006, 01:35
For my Iron Warriors army, i give it indirect fire mutated hull and daemonic posssession, as well as a crew compartment (nodbody's managed to destroy it yet, but that may be because i ordnance anything that looks as if it might be getting too close for comfort)

Don't think you can take armoured crew compartment for Iron Warriors Basilisks.

mistformsquirrel
24-12-2006, 01:40
Not everyone gets the same from doing this as you though. Everyone gets something different from the hobby. I know some folk who are consumate gamers but see painting as a chore and doslike it intensly. Remember it's THE hobby not YOUR hobby.



Well there is plenty of wiggle room in the various codices for these to be created. All people need is a bit of creativity and Voila. I have a Tau urban warfare auxillery detachment at home made from the guard codex and i've seen plenty of other much more imaginative armies. At this year's GT was an arbites army complete with flashing blue and red lights - based on the guard dex, and a friend of mine has a genestealer cult army based on the witch hunter's codex.

To cut a long rant short, GW just give you the outline and the tools to work with. The rest is down to the individual.


My primary army is comming (generally) from a sector of space controlled by humans that have been isolated from the Imperium since shortly after its inception (The fluff is still evolving - but that's it so far).

Someday (this is a super-long term goal here) - I plan to have the following:

A Sisters of Battle Army (Using both Marine and SoB models) - this is the "power armored" division, the elite troops of my tiny space empire. Tough, skilled... but not quite space marines.

A Tau army (with IG bitz), formed up as the "regular army" - essentially, the troops are armed and equipped for air-mobile style warfare, getting in, getting the job done, and getting the heck out.

A Grey Knights army suited up as the Royal Guard (my little sector has a queen who, in serious situations, will go into battle with her retinue).

IG may get included to as a 'militia' force of some variety.

But the idea being they'd all be humans distinct in look and feel from the Imperium. Particularly if someone let me field them all together <,< though I somehow doubt that'd ever happen.

I grant you - I'm still just getting my first army together - so it's going to be an age and a half before I get the whole thing together.

The_Outsider
24-12-2006, 02:14
I don't hate marines, but I do play a lot of marines and necrons (while also being a marine and necron player myself) and to be honest, its not a problem. I find a lot of the hate comes from people who use oldar armies that are in dire need of an update (ironically, DE- on paper -should rape marines with a bit of skill).

Since the new eldar codex the amount of marine hate I have seen has dropped dramatically.

Getz
24-12-2006, 02:40
Well there is plenty of wiggle room in the various codices for these to be created. All people need is a bit of creativity and Voila. I have a Tau urban warfare auxillery detachment at home made from the guard codex and i've seen plenty of other much more imaginative armies. At this year's GT was an arbites army complete with flashing blue and red lights - based on the guard dex, and a friend of mine has a genestealer cult army based on the witch hunter's codex.

To cut a long rant short, GW just give you the outline and the tools to work with. The rest is down to the individual.

But isn't that really the problem? If I want to play some obscure faction from the greater 40K universe, I need to take advantage of the "wiggle room" and "counts as" rules and find an army list to fill in... However, if I want to play some minor Chapter of Space Marines, there's probably a codex out with special rules and even a model line... (I mean seriously, who actually plays the Legion of the Damned..? :eyebrows:)


You can still give them crew compartments, and i was talking basic costs. For my Iron Warriors army, i give it indirect fire mutated hull and daemonic posssession, as well as a crew compartment (nodbody's managed to destroy it yet, but that may be because i ordnance anything that looks as if it might be getting too close for comfort)

Hey, if you want to sink a ton of points into a ACC for a Basilisk, be my guest. It increases the vehicle's cost by 20% and adds next to nothing to their survivability...

Marshal2Crusaders
24-12-2006, 02:47
When COdex DArk ANgels is released people will stop whining. Hopefully when al the codexes are done somewhere before 2010 the whole game will be balanced and people will stop griping and all armies will be played equally.

Master Jeridian
24-12-2006, 03:32
When COdex DArk ANgels is released people will stop whining. Hopefully when al the codexes are done somewhere before 2010 the whole game will be balanced and people will stop griping and all armies will be played equally.

Do you actually believe this? At best it's naive.

Codex's have been updated, creeped, rebalanced, units shifted, weakened, powered up throughout 2nd Ed, 3rd Ed, and now 4th Ed.

A new Edition has always been produced before all the books have been completed- meaning this theory of 'perfect balance' hasn't even been tested.

It's good for business- if a book is perfect, then why would a customer need to buy another book to replace it?
GW policy of nerfing popular models/units and boosting unpopular models/units is pretty transparent.

The Tornado is a perfect example- 3rd Ed Codex, how many did you see/field?
4th Ed Codex, how many do you see/field?
The reverse occurs for the Rhino.

Paladin-01
24-12-2006, 05:39
Speaking as someone new to the game, and not having really gotten involved before, Space Marines are the iconic part of the game to people who don't play it. Lots of other games have skeleton armies and orcs, and while granted, the whole "Space" prefix is pretty cool, its not as iconic as "Mass of dudes in armor bigger than 3 other dudes". Tyranids? Seen them in Aliens and Starcraft (probably a sore issue for you people, but unfortunately, its got more exposure than Warhammer.) Eldar? Tau? Barely heard of them. No exposure.

Also, as a newcomer? Get off the whole Chaos/Imperium thing. Seems like in the future, Mankind has two options. Blind chanting to a dead guy or blind chanting against the dead guy, WHILE BEING COVERED IN TENTACLES. I mean, the only non-Imperium non-working-for-Chaos group the Damned Company of Lord Caustos, who just went Chaos... just because? They serve as mercenaries, according to Wikipedia.

stompzilla
24-12-2006, 07:38
But isn't that really the problem? If I want to play some obscure faction from the greater 40K universe, I need to take advantage of the "wiggle room" and "counts as" rules and find an army list to fill in... However, if I want to play some minor Chapter of Space Marines, there's probably a codex out with special rules and even a model line... (I mean seriously, who actually plays the Legion of the Damned..? )


Oh for God's sake. They haven't even finished doing the codices yet for a start - the new chaos codex is rumoured to have lists for lost and the damned and the lost and the damned list at present is still pretty good.

The new codices, especially the guard codex also contain a lot of opportunity for customisation. Want a feral world, native hunter, army? Take the combat weapons and camelioline doctrines etc. Do you really need GW to do EVERYTHING for you?

Like it or not, marines are the centre of the 40K story, just like the jedi in star wars. You complain about the lack of variation but different marine chapters provide variation, on top of the xenos races that are gaining popularity all the time. Maybe it's not entirely fair how much attention the marines get but who really cares? Bottom line is marines are cool.

slasher
24-12-2006, 12:21
@ Stompzilla - the person you quoted ment the cursed founding of Space Marines chapter (Legion of the Damned) NOT the Lost and Damned army from eye of terror campaign. Which although they have a model line no-one plays - which is the point he was making.

stompzilla
24-12-2006, 13:38
I know he did, but he also mentioned obscure factions from the depths of the 41st millenium - hence lost and the damned, which combined with orks are mankind's most frequent adverasries (+ organised "Bloodpact esq" armies which can be made very easily using the guard codex - stalk tanks = sentinels any one?).

The legion of the damned models aren't new, they are from 2nd ed when legion of the damned had quite a fan base. Also worth noting, in 2nd ed there were a hell of a lot less xenos lists than there are now. (Unless you include squats which were just plain pants)

bratbag
24-12-2006, 13:55
Oh for God's sake. They haven't even finished

Like it or not, marines are the centre of the 40K story, just like the jedi in star wars. You complain about the lack of variation but different marine chapters provide variation

They don't.They really, really don't.

There are a few rules that tweek how the army behaves in certain situations, but at the end of the day they are the same damn army made up of the same damn power armoured models that are all constructed of the same damn shapes.

stompzilla
24-12-2006, 14:19
So you're trying to tell me that BAs play the same as DA for e.g.? They do add variation. The models themselves may not be that different but TBH i don't really care.

Mr Zephy
24-12-2006, 14:23
Whether you care or not is your choice, but when you shoot a squad of DA marines, they die exactly the same as a squad of any other marines, because they have the same armour and the same toughness.

Master Jeridian
24-12-2006, 14:27
So you're trying to tell me that BAs play the same as DA for e.g.? They do add variation. The models themselves may not be that different but TBH i don't really care.

Not really. They'll both have identical stats, they'll both have las/plas, Tornados, Predators, etc.

The only difference is BA will also have a free assault squad, whilst DA players often have an unhealthy obssession with plasma cannons.

I thinking variation such as between a Tau army and an IG army- that's variation.

DoctorTom
24-12-2006, 19:03
The legion of the damned models aren't new, they are from 2nd ed when legion of the damned had quite a fan base. Also worth noting, in 2nd ed there were a hell of a lot less xenos lists than there are now. (Unless you include squats which were just plain pants)

Umm, this is the Marine hate thread, not the Squat hate thread;) But, you should also note that with the original Rogue Trader there were plenty of aliens around that aren't around anymore. The aforementioned squats, zoats, ambull. Lists that were put out for second edition were also much more diverse - you can do a lot now with 'counts as', but that isn't quite the same.

Greatoliver
24-12-2006, 19:07
Also, it's not just "it's the same" and "it's a variation", there are degrees of variation.

The Chapters in Marines provide variation, but it is of a very small degree as they are basically the same with only the colour being radically different.